{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35663/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35663","id":"gutenberg_35663","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35663","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- England -- History -- 19th century","England -- Church history"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed Proofreading\nTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from\nimages generously made available by The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTWO ADDRESSES:\n\nONE,\n\nTO THE GENTLEMEN\n\nOF WHITBY,\n\nWHO SIGNED THE REQUISITION, CALLING A MEETING\nTO ADDRESS THE QUEEN, ON THE LATE (SO\nCALLED) AGGRESSION OF THE POPE:\n\nAND THE OTHER, TO\n\nTHE PROTESTANT CLERGY.\n\nBY\n\nThe Catholic Priest of Ugthorp.\n\n    \"I would you had been there to see\n    How the light blazed up so gloriously.\"\n\n            \"And then in naked majesty,\n    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,\n    Came truth.\"\n\nWHITBY:\n\nPRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HORNE AND RICHARDSON:\nSOLD BY RICHARDSON & SONS, LONDON AND DERBY.\n\nONE SHILLING.\n\n1851.\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION.\n\n\n_The following pages are humbly, and gratefully Dedicated, to the\n    Catholic Noblemen and Gentlemen of Yorkshire, by the Catholic\n    Priest at Ugthorp._\n\nNOBLEMEN AND GENTLEMEN,\n\nMany of you, lately appeared boldly, and manfully on the platform at\nYork, in defence of our holy religion. Conscious of the justice and\ninnocence of our cause, you feared neither the sneers, nor the insults,\nnor the shouts, nor the threats of its enemies, but, like your\nillustrious ancestors, shewed that you considered your religion, as your\nbest inheritance, and held it more dear than life itself; whilst, on the\nother hand, like your illustrious ancestors, you shewed that you yielded\n_to none_, in _your loyal allegiance_ to your _temporal_ sovereign, and\nto the state. Now it would be ungrateful, nay even base, in us Catholic\nclergymen, not to second your manly, and zealous exertions in defence of\nour ancient, and holy faith. To you, therefore, I most humbly, and\ngratefully dedicate the following pages. I hope you will find, that I\nhave not advanced in them, anything that is inconsistent with the\nprinciples of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have acted otherwise,\nwould, I am sure (for I have the honour to be personally acquainted with\nmost of you), be most insulting to your noble, and liberal feelings, and\nwould only have served, to confirm the hostility of the Protestant, and\nto loosen the attachment of the Catholic, to that cause, which I had\nundertaken to defend.\n\nNoblemen, and Gentlemen, when the Catholic looks back on the _past_, he\nwill learn to hope well of the _future_. He will observe, that the\nirritating objections of former times, are now almost shamed out of\nParliament, and can hardly support their credit, even among the most\nsuspicious, and least informed Protestants. He will see, that our\nopponents have uniformly been compelled, to shift their ground from\nposition to position, and after pertinaciously defending each, have ended\nby abandoning _it_, and retreating to _another_. At first, the Catholics\nwere accused of favouring the claims of the Stuarts, but the extinction\nof that family, has put an end to that charge. We were then told, that\nthe Catholics, could not be bound _by oath_, though _oaths_, had been\nwisely devised as the _best safeguards_, against their supposed perfidy.\nNext, the fathers of the great Council of Latern, were marshalled against\nus; as if men were to be punished at the _present_ day, because\nProtestants will not understand the regulations of feudal Princes, and\nfeudal Prelates _six centuries ago_. Afterwards, we were reproached with\nthe deposing powers, and temporal pretensions of the Pope; these were set\nat rest at _that time_ (and we had hoped _for ever_,) by the answers of\nthe foreign Universities. Lastly, came the Coronation Oath, men, however,\ncould not be persuaded that the Sovereign, by promising to maintain the\nliberties of the Protestant Church, was bound to deprive of their civil\nrights all those, who might dissent from the spiritual creed of that\nChurch. Each of these arguments in its day, was deemed _unanswerable_,\nbut _each_ has _yielded to discussion_. _Past_ advantages, therefore,\nNoblemen and Gentlemen, are an earnest to the Catholic of _future_\nsuccess; and after the hour of the late excitement, about the Pope's\ntemporal and spiritual power, has passed away, I am sure, all sensible,\nand unbiassed Englishmen will see, that the late hubbub, has been an\n_ignus fatuus_ of imaginations distorted with fear, and alarm, which had\nwell nigh, misled the whole nation, into a quagmire of inconsistency,\nilliberality and revolution.\n\n  _Catholic Chapel House, Ugthorp, near Whitby,\n             January 21st, 1851._\n\n\n\n\nTO THE READER.\n\n\nReader, that you may the better understand the two following addresses,\nyou ought _first_, to read the copy of the requisition for the meeting,\n&c., which is placed before these two addresses, and you ought also, to\nread the little address which here follows, and which I published to\nannounce, that the following pages would shortly appear in print. In the\nnotice of the requisition for the public meeting, &c., you will find\nthese words, \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the part of the\nPope.\" Now, reader, you must remember, that these memorable words are my\ngrand text, in the two following addresses. I here beg to offer my\nsincere thanks to the gentlemen, who signed the requisition, for I am\nsure, if they had studied from the deluge until now, they could not have\ngiven me, a more suitable text for the Catholic cause, and a more\ndestructive one to the Protestant Church. But, reader, you will be able\nto judge of this yourself, after reading the following pages. Read first\nthen, the following little address, and then read the notice calling the\npublic meeting.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_In the press, and in the course of a few weeks will be published, an\n    Address to the Gentlemen who signed the late Requisition to the\n    Magistrates of Whitby, to call a Public Meeting to address the\n    Queen on the late extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the\n    part of the Bishop of Rome._\n\nTO THE INHABITANTS OF WHITBY AND OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.\n\nINHABITANTS,\n\nI have been lately often asked, why I did not attend the above meeting? I\nreply, read my address when it is published, and you will there find an\nanswer to your question. It is a common observation of sailors, \"only\ngive the ship plenty of sea-room in a storm, and then she will live.\"\nNow, inhabitants of Whitby, and of the neighbourhood, if you will give\nthe Catholic Church (or, if you please, the Roman Catholic Church) only\nthe sea-room of fair play, you will, perhaps, find that the bottom and\nsides of this spiritual ship, are well coppered with the solid, and\nimpenetrable metal of good reasons, and solid arguments, and that, full\nrigged as she is, with the sails of truth, of justice, and of honour, she\ncan gallantly brave the hurricanes of her enemies, and ride triumphantly,\namid the storms of spiritual and temporal agitation, which have lately\nthreatened to shipwreck, and to sink her.\n\nWhen my address appears, I hope you will find in it, nothing that is\ninconsistent with principles of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have\nused any other weapons of defence would, in my humble opinion, have\nserved only to strengthen the Protestant hostility, and to loosen the\nCatholic attachment, to that cause, which I had undertaken to defend.\nYou will, of course, expect a little of the comic, as coming from my pen,\nwell, as the poet says,\n\n        Ridentum dicere verum\n    Quid vetat?\n\nOr, that I may not speak in a foreign tongue, \"What forbids us to tell\nthe truth, with a smile?\"\n\nOf course you will perhaps expect a little innocent stir, among the\nReverends in my address, and _perhaps_, you may not be mistaken. If you\nremember, an _illuminated_ Cambridge Divine, some years ago, came to\nLythe, to make an \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the\nconsciences of us Romanists, (as he politely styled us), and learnedly\ninformed us, that we Romanists, were a set of spiritual chickens just\nhatching, and that he came to break our spiritual shells, that he might\nsave the young birds, from being thrown into the scorching flames of\nPurgatory in the next world, but while the courteous Clerk, was\nperforming this charitable office, to the benighted Romanists, _he_,\n_himself_, unfortunately, even in this world, fell into the flames of\npurgatory, which on this side the grave are made to burn, for those who\nbear false witness, against their neighbour; and it is generally\nbelieved, that he has never as yet been able to raise, from public\nopinion, as much money as will free him, from those torturing purgatorial\nflames. Oh, but you will naturally say, this is an old song, what has it\nto do with the present subject? Why, it has a great deal to do with it.\nCertain Reverends have been lately telling you, that the Pope of Rome,\nhas just made a most \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement,\" on the\nProtestants of England. Now you will perhaps find, from my Address, when\npublished, that even _these_ very Reverends themselves have been making,\nfor a long time, a most \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the\npockets and on the intellects of Englishmen; and have thus, like the\n_illuminated_ Cambridge divine, unfortunately fallen into the very pit,\nwhich they have been so very charitably, and officiously digging for the\n_poor_ Pope.\n\nSensible Englishmen, when these Reverends, would uncharitably excite you\nagainst your long much injured, and unjustly abused Catholic fellow\ncreatures, just say to them, \"Reverend gentlemen, you tell us that the\nScripture (the book of eternal life and of truth), teaches CHARITY TO ALL\nMEN! why, therefore, should you wish us to exclude the _Catholics_ from a\nshare of that _universal_ Charity?\" And in the next place tell them, \"the\nPope and all his spiritual crew are either from God or not: if they are\nnot from God, all their human, and popish inventions will come of\nthemselves to naught, and why, therefore, should you wish us Protestants,\nto break our charitable heads about _them_. But if they are from God, how\ncan either you or we fight against them, unless you arrogantly presume,\nthat you can conquer the Almighty! At least, so teaches the sacred\nScripture, for does it not thus plainly, and emphatically say, 'And now\ntherefore I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for\nif this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught; but if it\nbe of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to\nfight against God.'\" (Acts v. 38, 39.)\n\nAs I have been obliged to range in my address, over an extensive\n_spiritual_ and _temporal_ moor, and as I have had to bring down, and bag\nso much black game, of course my Address, will be of rather an extensive\nnature. It is, indeed, now in the press, but of course its appearance\nwill, in some measure, depend upon the expedition of the printer, but I\nwill promise you, that it shall be got out of the printer's hands _as\nsoon as possible_, and then, it must appeal to the judgments of sensible\nand unbiassed minds, as to its merits, and demerits. In the mean time, as\nEnglishmen always wish to know the text, I will give you the two texts,\nwhich I have chosen for the titlepage of my Address.\n\n    \"I would you had been there to see\n    How the light blazed up so gloriously.\"\n\n          \"And then in naked Majesty,\n    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,\n    Came truth.\"\n\nInhabitants, in conclusion, I confidently appeal to you, if you ever knew\nme do an ungenteel act to any Protestant in point of religion. I have\nalways wished equal rights and equal justice for all, both for\nProtestants and Dissenters; I have always wished to live in peace and\ncharity with all; in short, I have always endeavoured to observe, as far\nas my human weakness would allow, that heavenly precept of our divine\nSaviour, \"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have\nlove for one another;\" and I can confidently appeal to the public, if\nthis has not always been the tenor of my conduct. I assure you, that it\nis very contrary to my wishes, to have to appear before you, with my pen\non these occasions. Among the Protestants I have many sincere friends,\nand of course, what I shall have to advance in my Address, may not be\nvery agreeable to their feelings. But as I really know, and\nconscientiously believe, that the Church, of which I have the honour to\nbe a minister, is really the true Church of Christ, to shrink from its\ndefence for the sake of private feelings, and private interests, would,\nin my ideas, be a most base and an unchristian act on my part. I exclaim\nwith the poet,\n\n    \"A day, an hour of virtuous liberty,\n    Is worth a whole eternity in bondage.\"\n\nFarewell, inhabitants, for the present, and if, when my Address appears\nbefore the public, you would like to have a little _innocent_ merriment,\nand to hear some plain homely truths, I hope you will not be disappointed\nif you purchase my Address.\n\n  _Catholic Chapel, Ugthorp, Dec. 21st, 1850._\n\n\n\n\nCOPY OF A NOTICE\n\n\n_To the Worshipful the Magistrates for the Division of Whitby, in the\nNorth Riding of the County of York._\n\n     We, the undersigned Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood\n     of Whitby, feeling deeply the propriety of presenting an\n     address to Her Majesty, on the late extraordinary and\n     presumptuous movement on the part of the Bishop of Rome, and\n     expressive of our loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's\n     person, authority, and government, do request that you will be\n     pleased to convene a Meeting for these purposes, to be held at\n     an early day, in some convenient place in the town of Whitby.\n\n     Dated, November 21st, 1850.\n\n     James Davidson, Minister,\n     John Fox, Minister,\n     Joseph Hughes, Minister,\n     Francis Simpson,\n     John Cass Potter, Independent\n     Minister,\n     Henry Belcher,\n     William John Bullivant, Wesleyan\n     Minister,\n     Thomas William Belcher,\n     Thomas Richardson,\n     John Blanchard,\n     Appleton Stephenson,\n     James Walker,\n     John Chapman,\n     G. H. Holtby,\n     Gideon Smales,\n     William Jameson,\n     Henry Barrick,\n     Henry Simpson,\n     John Brewster,\n     John Rickinson,\n     George Clarkson,\n     James Wilkinson,  }\n     Charles Fisher,   }Churchwardens\n     William Frankland,}\n     Thomas Broderick Simpson,\n     Henry Simpson,\n     William Cavalier,\n     John Corner, jun.\n     James Brown,\n     Charles Prudom,\n     John Brown Nicholson,\n     R. M. Woodwark,\n     William Taylor,\n     Francis Kildale Robinson,\n     Robert Kirby,\n     Robert Swales,\n     John Green,\n     Charles Bartindale,\n     William Clarkson,\n     John Gaskell,\n     William Frankland, jun.\n\n     We, the undersigned Magistrates, present at a Petty Session,\n     held at the Justice Room, Whitby, this 23rd day of November,\n     1850, do hereby give notice, that a Public Meeting of the\n     Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Whitby, will be\n     held, in compliance with the above Requisition, in the Town\n     Hall, at Whitby, on Thursday, the 28th instant, at Twelve\n     o'clock at noon.\n\n     JOHN CHAPMAN,\n     CHRISTOPHER RICHARDSON, New Buildings.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ADDRESS.\n\n\nGENTLEMEN,\n\nThe copy of a notice on the preceding page, shows that you thought proper\nto call a public meeting, for the purposes expressed in that bill. Now do\nnot suppose for one moment, that I wish to question either the right, or\nthe propriety of calling such a meeting. If our Protestant countrymen\nchoose to call, and hold meetings for the purpose of expressing their\nsentiments on any public question, they have certainly, a right to do so,\nand also a right to the free expression of their sentiments on those\noccasions. But, gentlemen, have not _we Catholics_ also an _equal_ right,\nto express _our_ sentiments on those subjects. That a regular opposition\nto the Catholics, has been lately organized, must be evident to the most\ninattentive observer. The clergy, and the head of the government, have\nbeen placed in the front of the battle, and with cry of danger to the\n_Church_, has been coupled that of danger to the _Constitution_. In aid\nof these efforts, the press also, has been put in requisition, and the\nlabours of anti-catholic journalists, and the diffusion of anti-catholic\ntracts, published in every shape, and adapted to every understanding,\nbear ample testimony to the zeal, and activity of those, who assume the\nlead in this anti-catholic crusade. We are doomed to hear daily, our\nreligion traduced, our spiritual but illustrious Head, bespattered with\nthe most vile abuse, our civil liberty menaced, our Clergy threatened\nwith pains, and penalties, our most sacred rites most contumaciously\ndesignated by the first minister of the Crown as mummeries, and the Lord\nHigh Chancellor vaunting his readiness to trample, on the mitres of our\nbishops. Gentlemen, I think it cannot be expected that we Catholics,\nshould remain _silent_, and humble our heads before this whirlwind of\nProtestant intolerance, and that, imitating the stupidity of the Ostrich,\nwe should endeavour to escape our hunters, by concealing our heads. But,\ngentlemen, you may perhaps ask, why did you not attend our public\nmeeting? I reply, I did not hear of your meeting until a day after it had\nbeen held, but if I had _heard_ of it _before_, I should not have\nattended for the following reasons. Meetings that are convened by one\nparty, are generally _packed_ meetings, called under the excitement of\nthe moment, and the audience in general are unwilling to listen to fair\nplay, or to the arguments of their opponents. This was evident from your\nmeeting, for had it not been for the honest, and liberal conduct of your\nchairman, Christopher Richardson, Esq., Mr. Taylerson, though not a\nCatholic, would not have obtained a hearing, and how were his sensible\nquestions answered? By shouts, and hisses. But, gentlemen, I have another\nreason for not attending. Each nation, like each individual, has a\ncertain character, and temperament. Now, whoever will deliberately\nconsider the character, and temperament of Englishmen, will find, that\nwhen they are once roused, and excited, they are then unwilling to\nlisten, either to reason or argumentation, but let the heat of excitement\npass away, and let the cooler moments of reflection return, and _then_,\nyou may appeal to them with propriety, and advantage. It is very\nimprudent and foolish for a wife to expostulate, and argue with her\ndrunken husband, but let the moments of sobriety return, and then, her\nreasonable, and prudent expostulations, may be attended with salutary\neffects. For these reasons, gentlemen, I did not attend your public\nmeeting.\n\nBut you will say, why do you address us in particular? Why, gentlemen, I\ncannot for a moment suppose that when you are cool, and unexcited, you\nare so wedded to your own opinions, and so deaf to the claims of fair\nplay, as to be unwilling to listen to the arguments of the _accused_.\nSurely you do not wish to trample down the accused, _unheard!_ If you do,\nI really think it is a very \"extraordinary, and presumptuous movement\" on\nyour part, and I am sure every sensible and honest Englishman will think\nthe same.\n\nWell, then, gentlemen, let us now come to the point in question. I begin\nby asking the very sensible, and rational question, which Mr. Taylerson\nput to your meeting. What aggression have the Pope and Dr. Wiseman\ncommitted? What English Law have they transgressed? If any, why not let\nthe law be calmly and quietly enforced against them? But if they have\nbroken no law, why all this fury, and tirade against them as if they had?\nOh, but, replied a certain influential gentleman, at your meeting, \"If\nthere is not a law, there must be one made.\" I answer, that the principle\nof self-defence will, in cases of real danger, authorize the adoption of\nlawful precautions, I am not disposed to deny; but, then, those\nprecautions must be founded _on equity_; they must be such as _reason_\nwill justify, or _necessity_ excuse. You are not to invade the rights or\nprivileges of others, on the _bare suspicion_ of _future_ danger or the\n_mere_ possibility of a possibility. You are not to cane a man at\nLady-day, because he may affront you at Midsummer. If you think the\ncontrary, I must, gentlemen, candidly tell you, it is a very\n\"extraordinary, and presumptuous movement\" on your part, against the\nrights and privileges of your fellow creatures, and if any Magistrate,\nwere to advance such extraordinary opinions, in a court of justice, I\nfeel confident, every sensible and honest Englishman would deeply feel\nthe propriety, of presenting an address to Her Majesty, or to Her\nMinisters, on so \"extraordinary, and presumptuous a movement\" on the part\nof that Magistrate, against the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's\nsubjects.\n\nGentlemen, before we proceed any further, I think it requisite to call\nyour attention to two points. First, that your _Protestant_ ancestors,\n_really_ did to our _Catholic_ ancestors, what you now merely _fancy_,\nwithout any grounds, that the _Catholics_ of the present day, are wishful\nto do _to you_. Now, upon this point, I shall thus argue: Your Protestant\nancestors did these things either _justly_, or _unjustly_ to our Catholic\nancestors. If your Protestant ancestors did these things _justly_, why\nshould you Protestants make such a row, at the _mere shadow_ of these\nthings being done again? But if your Protestant ancestors, did these\nthings _unjustly_, then you must acknowledge, that the Church of England,\nowes its first foundation to acts of injustice. The second point which I\nwish to settle, before I proceed any further, is that the spiritual\nmembers of the Church of Rome, have the most just, and the only claim, to\nthe honourable name of Catholic. Let us now hasten to the first of these\npoints.\n\nGentlemen, the following facts, as _historical_ facts, are _undeniable_,\nand whoever has the temerity to deny them as _historical_ facts, I\ncertainly envy not his knowledge of, nor his veracity for, historical\ntestimony. MARK WELL, I am not going to talk about the soundness, or\nunsoundness of the following opinions, but I merely wish you to bear it\nin mind, that it is an _indisputable historical_ fact, that these\nopinions were really, and conscientiously believed by the Christian world\nin former ages. Well, then, the following are undeniable historical\nfacts: That, in former ages, the Christian world believed that the\nCatholic Church, was the first Christian Church, and began with our\nSaviour, that St. Peter was appointed, by divine authority, to be the\nHead of this Church, that the Popes of Rome were the true successors of\nSt. Peter, by divine authority, and that they were always considered, the\none Shepherd, to whom all Christendom owed spiritual obedience. All\nChristendom, in former ages, with here and there an exception, held these\nopinions, and when the Christian religion, was introduced into England\n(which was effectually done about six hundred years after our Saviour),\nthese opinions prevailed in England, as well as in all other Christian\ncountries. The Pope was the Spiritual Head of the Church here, as well as\nin all the Christian world. He exercised His Spiritual authority, without\nany co-partnership with, or dependence upon the State. The Catholic\nChurch then also claimed to hold its possessions in the most independent\nmanner, it claimed a prescriptive right to all its possessions; in short,\nit claimed to hold these possessions as firmly, and as justly, as a man\nclaims the rightful possession of his life, and his free will. Now, mark\nwell, I am not talking, as I just now observed, about the soundness or\nunsoundness of these opinions, all that I am contending for at present,\nis, that it is an indisputable historical fact, that these opinions\n_then_ prevailed in all Christian countries, and that they prevailed in\nEngland, for at least nine hundred years, for England was, at the very\nleast, nine hundred years a Catholic nation. During the prevalence of\nthese opinions in England, arose churches, parishes, cathedrals, and\nbishops' sees, monasteries, and many of our universities, and colleges,\n_then_ Catholic, but _now_ Protestant.\n\nNow, it is an historical fact recorded in the English Statute Book, that\nyour Protestant ancestors took from the Pope, his spiritual power in\nEngland (for he never had any temporal power here, as these pages will\nshortly prove to you), and your Protestant ancestors took from the\nCatholics all the rich possessions which belonged, in their estimation,\nby the strongest titles, to the Catholic Church; and, _mind_, they did\nthis after the Pope had exercised his spiritual power in England, for at\nleast nine hundred years, and after the Catholics had held this church\nproperty for at least nine hundred years. But, oh, you will reply, our\nProtestant ancestors did this by Act of Parliament! I grant it, and\nsurely you will not think it unjust in me, to judge you now by your own\nacknowledgments. Now, your Protestant ancestors did this _justly_, or\n_unjustly_. If they did it _justly_, by act of Parliament, why cannot the\nsame thing be done again _justly_, by Act of Parliament? Divide the\npopulation of England into two parts, and if you number accurately, you\nwill find, that the Catholics and the Dissenters form, in my humble\nopinion, the greater half. Should, therefore, the Catholics and\nDissenters, obtain an Act of Parliament, to take this church property\nfrom you Protestants, what reasonable arguments could you advance against\nit? Turn the question up, or down, you could not possibly escape. If you\nallege that you have had possession for three hundred years, the\nCatholics and Dissenters will reply, the Catholics had held it for at\nleast nine hundred years. If you argue it was given by Act of Parliament\nto your Protestant Church, the Catholics and Dissenters will reply, the\nCatholics held it, by the sanction of Government, for nine hundred years\nat least. In short, turn the argument as you please, you are in a\n_regular fix_. Oh, what a powerful, and unanswerable argument, have you\nforced me to put into the mouths of the Dissenters, against _your_ church\nproperty, even if you got it justly! Allow me then to ask you, why all\nthis tirade and fury about the _mere fancy_ of a thing being done to you,\nwhich you assert, your ancestors did _justly_ to the Catholics. But if\nyou took this property _unjustly_ from the Catholics, then it is as plain\nas the noon-day sun, that the Protestant Church, was first founded upon\nacts of _injustice_.\n\nBut some will perhaps imagine, we really wish to take the church property\nfrom the Protestants. In the Catholic times of England, the church\nproperty was divided into three parts, one was for the support of the\nclergy, another was for the repair of the churches, and the third was for\nthe support of the poor, and this third was always administered to the\npoor with the most scrupulous exactness.[A] Hence, among all the\nbarefaced calumnies, which have been uttered against the Catholics, even\nher bitterest enemies, could never say that she was unjust to the poor.\nBut the Protestant _reformed_ Church thought it would be the least\ntrouble, to put these _three parts_ into _one whole_ sum, and apply the\n_whole_ of that sum to _themselves_, and then, leave the nation to supply\nthe other two parts, by _Church rates_, and _Poor rates_. Now, let the\nProtestant Church, only give back to the poor, that part which she\nunjustly took from them, and as for the rest, I can only say, God speed\nthem with it, and long may they enjoy it.\n\nSome of you gentlemen certainly appear, to be _worthy_ descendents of\nyour Protestant ancestors, for _they_ took from us our church\npossessions, _you_ are now enjoying these church possessions, but not\ncontent with our possessions, you wish to deprive us, even of our _very\nname_; for you are endeavouring, by every artifice, to deceive the\npeople, and make them believe--_you_ and not _we_ are the real Catholics.\nYou remind me of the words of the Poet,\n\n    \"Who steals my purse, steals trash,\n    'Twas mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands;\n    But he who filches from me my good name,\n    Robs me of that which not enriches him, but makes me poor indeed.\"\n\nYou tell the people we Papists are Roman Catholics, but _you_\nProtestants, are the _real_ Catholics. Let us then, take up the\nDictionary, and _see_ what is the real meaning of the word, _Catholic_.\nAccording to the Dictionary, the word (Catholic) means universal. Of\ncourse, then, when the word (Catholic) is applied to a Church, it must\nmean the Universal Church. Let us then now see _which_ is the Universal\nChristian Church, and then we shall be able to judge, who have the\ngreatest right to the honourable name of Catholic. The testimony which I\nshall cite to prove, that we are the most numerous body of Christians, is\nthat of Macaulay, a celebrated Protestant historian of the present day,\nand whose historical pages have been quoted against us, in many of the\nlate public meetings, that have been held. Of course, if his testimony is\nworthy of belief when _against_, it must also be so when _for_ us.\nSpeaking of the great body of the Roman Catholic Church, Macaulay says,\n\"The numbers of her communion are certainly not _fewer_ than 150,000,000,\nand it will be difficult to shew that all the other Christian sects\n_united_ amount to 120,000,000.\"[B] (Ed. Rev., Oct. 1840, p. 228.) You\nhere see, that Macaulay tells you, that the Roman Catholics amount to _at\nleast_ 150,000,000, whilst all other Christian sects _united_ into one\nbody, scarcely form 120,000,000. As therefore the Roman Catholics form\nthe greatest body of Christians, they must be the Universal Church. But\nthe Dictionary tells us, that the word Catholic means Universal,\ntherefore the Church of Rome is alone both Universal and Catholic, and\nconsequently has the most just and only claim to the ancient and\nhonourable name of Catholic.\n\nI thought, gentlemen, before we proceeded to the main subjects in\ndiscussion, we had better settle the two above points. For after you had\nseen, that your Protestant ancestors had _really_ and _actually_ done to\nthe Catholics, what you _merely fancy_ the Pope and the Catholics are\nwishful at present to do to you, you would not think it _unreasonable_ in\nus, to claim your attention, whilst we shewed you the unreasonable\ngrounds of your _present_ fears and alarms, and that, after you had seen,\nthat _we_ have the _only_ just claim to the honourable name of\nCatholic,[C] you would not be startled, at hearing so often in these\npages, that ancient name applied to the Spiritual members of the Pope in\nthese realms.\n\nLet us now, gentlemen, proceed to the subject which has so lately alarmed\nyou, and many other Englishmen. There is nothing, that shews a man to be\nso little, as to bluster, and talk about a subject, which he does not\nunderstand. Now, gentlemen, had you been asked at the meeting, what the\nPope's Bull was? or, what the Catholic Hierarchy meant? what a poser it\nwould have been to the limbs of the law, or even to the limbs of the\nChurch, who attended your meeting; for they either understood these\nsubjects, or they did not. If they really understood them, I am sure\nthese pages will shew every sensible person, they had no reason to\nconsider the conduct of the Pope, either \"extraordinary or presumptuous,\"\nand if they did not understand them, I really think it a very\n\"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on their part, to talk against\ntheir fellow Christians on subjects, of which they were ignorant. Had I\ndone so, would they not have been tempted to apply to me the words of the\nPoet?\n\n    \"A shallow brain beyond a serious mask,\n    An Oracle within an empty cask.\"\n\nFor your information therefore, I will state in short, what we Catholics\nmean by the Hierarchy, and the Pope's Bull. We all know, that good\n_temporal_ government, consists in having all the various rights of its\nmembers, properly understood, and justly protected. Thus the Queen, the\nPeers, the Commoners, the Magistrates, in short, the higher classes, the\nmiddle classes, and the lower classes, have all their rights properly\ndefined, and their several interests justly attended to in a good\ntemporal government. Now reason tells us, that this ought to be the case\nin a good _spiritual_ government, and we Catholics maintain, that these\nobjects are best attained by the means of a spiritual Hierarchy; and, at\nthe same time we believe, that this spiritual Hierarchy, can be\nestablished only by the spiritual power of the Pope. When the Pope\ntherefore thinks, that either the number of his spiritual members, or\ntheir spiritual necessities, require the establishment of the Hierarchy,\nin any part of the world, he issues his spiritual Bull, or decrees to\nthat effect; and all the Archbishops, and Bishops, and Clergy, and laity,\nto whom this spiritual government is extended, receive it as a spiritual\nboon, and fully understand and believe, that it has regard _only_ to\n_spiritual_ matters. They all know, and believe, that it has nothing to\ndo with any _temporal_ matters whatever, in any shape or form, directly\nor indirectly, and if any person, after this explanation, was so impudent\nas to maintain, that the Hierarchy, or the Pope's Bull, had any reference\nto any _temporal_ matters, either directly, or indirectly, affecting the\n_temporal_ power of Her Majesty, over Her Catholic subjects, and the\n_temporal_ allegiance which they owe to Her Majesty, my loyalty for our\ngracious Queen, and my feelings of honour, would tempt me to address him\nin the words of the Poet,\n\n        \"A lie, an odious lie,\n    Upon my word, a lie, a wicked lie.\"\n\nGentlemen, after this short explanation of the Hierarchy, and of the\nPope's Bull, I appeal to you as free-born Englishmen, whether there can\nbe any English law, or statute against it? If there be, where is our\nvaunted boast, of \"liberty of conscience _to all_?\" Now MARK, whether\nthere be any law in the Statute Book against it, I do not pretend to have\nsufficient of the lawyer in me to determine, but _this_, I will shew you,\nthat the acts of the Pope, in establishing the spiritual Hierarchy in\nthis kingdom, by his Bull, or spiritual decrees, are in keeping with the\nspirit, upon which the English law has acted during these late years.\n\nBy the spirit of the English law, we, Catholics, are allowed to maintain\nthe Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical, and religious matters; we are\nalso allowed to be governed by Catholic Bishops, and of course, we are\nallowed to be governed by them, according to the proper and perfect form\nof Episcopal government, and there is no English law, to prevent these\nCatholic Bishops from taking the titles of any place, provided they are\nnot titles of places, held by the Anglican Hierarchy. Now, these\nconditions have been observed, in the late establishment of the Catholic\nHierarchy in these realms.\n\nAnd that it is in keeping with the spirit of the English Law, Lord John\nRussell's own words, will convince you. In the House of Commons, August\n6th, 1846, he said, \"There is another offence of introducing a Bull of\nthe Pope into the country, the question is, whether it is desirable to\nkeep up that, or any other penalty, for such an offence. It does appear\nto me, that we cannot possibly attempt, to prevent the introduction of\nthe Pope's Bulls into this country. There are certain Bulls of the Pope,\nwhich are _absolutely necessary_, for the appointment of Bishops and\nPastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite\n_impossible_, to prevent the introduction of such Bulls.\" (Hansard, vol.\nlxxxviii., p. 362.) Again, what said Lord Lyndhurst, speaking, in the\nHouse of Lords. \"You tolerate the Catholic Prelates, and you know, that\nthese Prelates cannot carry on, their Church Establishment, without\nholding communication with the Pope of Rome. If the laws allow the\ndoctrine, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it (the Roman\nCatholic Church) ought to be permitted, to be carried on _perfectly_ and\n_properly_.\" (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble\nLord proclaims, that to pretend to _tolerate_ the Catholic Religion as we\ndo; and _yet_, _prevent_ the Catholics from holding _free_ communication\nwith the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be\nallowed to carry out the organization of their Church _perfectly_ and\n_properly_. Now, _this_ cannot be done without the _Hierarchy_.\nAccordingly, all the penal laws in question were, then and there, torn\nfrom the statute book.\n\nAlso Joseph Hume, Esq., who may be justly styled, the father of the\npresent House of Commons, and who, in that House, has been so long the\npromoter, the pillar, and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty,\nhonourably, and openly, tells the world, that the Pope is warranted, in\nall he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government.\nThese are the words of the noble champion of civil and religious\nliberty--\"Your view of the subject, will be adopted as soon as the\nthinking part of the public, get their eyes opened to the real merits of\nthe alleged innovation. I say alleged, because Mr. C. C. Grenville has\nshewn, that the Pope is warranted in all he has done, by the proceedings\nof Sir Robert Peel's government, which were not at the time objected to\nby any person, except by Sir Robert Inglis, and his limited\nclass.\"--(Joseph Hume, to the Editor of the _Hull Advertiser_, Nov. 18th,\n1850.)\n\nThere was a time, when the Protestant Bishops were excluded, for some\ntime, from the House of Lords. In 1661, a motion was made to restore\nthese Protestant Prelates to their seats, and _mind_, six and twenty\nCatholic Peers voted in favour of these Protestant Bishops. But such is\nthe illiberality of the present time, that now, the Catholics find the\nmost determined and eager opposition on the Bishop's bench. There are,\nhowever, exceptions; few, indeed, but on that account, more entitled to\nour gratitude. Long will the name of the late Bishop of Norwich, be\ncherished in the remembrance of every sincere Catholic. And happy am I to\nobserve, another Protestant Prelate, willing to walk in his charitable\nfootsteps. I mean the sensible, the pious, and the learned present\nProtestant Bishop of St. Davids. This illustrious Protestant Prelate,\nliberally and candidly, told the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in his\nhumble opinion, \"the provision cited from the Act of Elizabeth, has been\nvirtually repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act * * * * And it was\nequally set 'at defiance,' by the appointment of Vicars Apostolic, who\nhave so long exercised their functions without complaint or molestation.\nAnd it seems unreasonable, to charge the Pope with defying a law which,\nhas been so long permitted to sleep.\" For these and other reasons, this\nmost liberal minded Protestant Prelate, lately refused to sign the\naddress of the other Protestant Bishops to the Queen. (Bishop of St.\nDavids to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nov. 26th, 1850.) Well I cannot\nbut gratefully, address this generous Prelate in the words of the poet--\n\n                      ----\"I quit you now,\n    But peradventure I may come again!\n    Your bounteous kindness ne'er shall be forgot,\n    While beats this warm heart within my bosom.\"\n\nCertainly, you will say, these are high, and weighty authorities on the\nCatholic side, and clearly demonstrate, that there can be nothing wrong,\non the Pope's sending his _Bulls_, into _this_ country. But, perhaps, the\n_greatest_ grievance lies in _this_, that the _Catholic_ Bishops, have\nassumed _English_ titles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of\nBeverley, &c. _This_, you hear it said, is _contrary to all_ law and\ndecency. Now, _mark_, gentlemen, how soon I shall prove to you, that it\nis neither against law, nor decency. I observe that the law as it regards\nCatholics, _forbids only one_ thing, it forbids _Catholic_ Bishops, to\nassume the titles of _Protestant_ sees. Thus it forbids us, to have an\nArchbishop of _Canterbury_, or a Bishop of _London_, of _Durham_, &c. And\nwhy so? Because there are _Protestant_ Bishops of _these_ places. But it\n_manifestly_ allows us to take the titles of _those_ places, in which,\nthere are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us\nfrom _all_ places and _all_ titles _whatsoever_, why did it _not say so_?\nBut, it says _no such_ thing. It excludes us _only_ from places where\nthere are _Protestant_ Bishops. Well, this restrictive law, the _only_\nlaw, that there is upon the question, has been most _scrupulously_\nobserved in _every_ instance by the Catholics. Not _one_ of their\nBishops, has assumed the title of any _Protestant_ see. For who ever\nheard of a _Protestant_ Bishop of Hexham, of Beverley, or of Liverpool.\nHow then can it be contrary to law? But I have yet, more to say on this\nsubject. Lord John Russell is an advocate for the repeal of _even_ this\n_restrictive_ law, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of\nreligious liberty. Nay, he considers it _childish_ to hold the Catholics\nunder such restrictions. \"I believe,\" said he (in July 19th, 1845,\nspeaking in the House of Commons,) \"I believe we may repeal, those\ninsulting clauses, which prevent a Roman Catholic assuming a title held,\nby a Bishop of the Established Church. I can conceive _no good_ grounds,\nfor the continuance of this restriction.\" (Hansard, vol. lxxxii., p.\n290.) And again on February 5, 1846, \"as to preventing persons assuming\n_particular_ titles, nothing can be more _absurd_ and _puerile_, than to\nkeep up _such_ a distinction.\" (Hansard, vol. lxxxiii., p. 502.) Now,\ngentlemen, _this_ was spoken in the _House of Commons_, and by the\n_first_ Minister of the Crown. You see, _he_ vindicates for the\nCatholics, _greater_ liberty than _they_ have either _exercised_, or\n_demanded_; the liberty to have Catholic Bishops, _side_ by _side_, with\nthe _Protestant_ Bishops _throughout_ the land. And yet, let me ask, did\nthe then Member for _Whitby_, or indeed _any_, of the thirty and more\nmembers, who represent this great county of York, raise a _voice_ against\n_these_ opinions and views? Did they cry out, that _this_, would be _an\ninnovation_ of the _Royal_ prerogative, and an _encroachment_ upon the\n_spiritual_, or _civil_ liberties of this realm. No, _not they_, not\n_one_ of them. Both the _Parliament_ and the _Public_ heard _all_ this,\neither with _approbation_, or with _indifference_. Judge, then, with what\nscorn the Catholics, hear themselves charged with insidiousness, and\naggression. Insidiousness! Why, the leaders of the two great portions, in\nthe state (for who stood _higher_ with the _Tories_ than _Lord\nLyndhurst_, and among the _Whigs_, than _Lord John Russell_), and yet,\nthese _two_ leaders, _actually_ encouraged, and invited the Catholics _to\ndo_, what they _have_ done. I repeat, they not only claimed for the\nCatholics the _right to do_ them, but _encouraged_ them _to do_ them.\nAfter the Catholics had _thus_ been encouraged, and backed by two of the\nfirst leaders, _one_ of the Whigs, and _one_ of the _Tories_, after they\nhad received the sanction of the _public_ by its silence, or indifference\non these points, the Catholics at last received the Hierarchy from the\nPope's hands; when lo! Lord John Russell, immediately writes a flaming\nphilippic on the subject, suddenly and unjustly rouses the indignation of\nthe people; and the Protestant clergy immediately head the crusade\nagainst the Catholics, for _doing_, what they had been encouraged, and\ninvited _to do_ by two of the first ministers of the land, and _for\ndoing_, what the English _public_ had _already_ sanctioned, by its\nsilence, or by its indifference. Really, gentlemen, was not this a \"most\nextraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the _rights_ of your Catholic\nfellow subjects? And, _this_, in the _nineteenth_ century, when the march\nof intellect, and of civil, and religious liberty, have been making such\nrapid progress in the British Empire. But what have I to say to Lord John\nRussell's late letter? I answer, it is not _my_ business to reconcile\nLord John Russell's _former_ declarations, with _his present late_\nproceedings, they are as _marvellous_ and _unaccountable_ in the _eyes_\nof the _public_, as they are in _mine_. He will shortly have to give an\naccount of his stewardship, before the Parliament, in whose _presence_,\nhe made the _declarations_, which I have _quoted_. If he _means_ to\ncontinue a _Champion_ of _civil_ and _religious_ liberty, he must\n_retrace_ his steps--but if he chooses to _abandon_ the _sacred_ cause,\n_then_, he will dwindle into a _most insignificant_, and _contemptible_\nstatesman: and will not be _permitted long to direct_ the government of a\n_free_ and _liberal_ people.\n\nThus you see, gentlemen, that the words of Lord John Russell, and of Lord\nLyndhurst, the opinion of Joseph Hume, Esq., and that of the learned\nProtestant Bishop of St. Davids, plainly shew, that the late acts of the\nPope, have been in keeping, with the present spirit of the English law.\n\nHence in Ireland, the Catholic Hierarchy, has not only been recognised,\nbut royally honoured; and the same form of Ecclesiastical Government, has\nbeen gradually extended, to the greater part of our Colonies. Australia\nwas the first, which obtained this spiritual advantage, and this was\n_openly_ done, and was _publicly_ known, and yet, no remonstrance was\never made against it. The Catholic Prelates of Australia, in every\ndocument, are addressed by their titles, and are acknowledged, and\nsalaried, as Archbishops and Bishops, respectively, and this not by one,\nbut by successive English governments. Our North American possessions,\nwere the next, to receive this spiritual government, Kingston, Byetown,\nToronto, and Halifax, have been erected into dioceses by the Holy See,\nand the titles of their respective Bishops, are acknowledged by their\nlocal governments. The Holy See, has also formed a new ecclesiastical\nprovince in the West Indies, where several Vicars Apostolic, have been\nappointed with titles, and with all the spiritual powers, allowed by the\nHierarchy. Now, gentlemen, if the Catholics of _Ireland_, and the\nCatholics of our _English_ Colonies, are thus allowed by Government, to\nenjoy the spiritual benefits of the Hierarchy, do you not think it\nunreasonable, that the Catholics _of England_, should be refused the same\nspiritual blessings? Do not the Dissenters also, enjoy in England, the\nfree exercise of _their_ spiritual powers? Dr. Dillon, assumed the power,\nand ordained, what he called Presbyters, and no Englishman thought\nproper, to call him to account, for assuming those spiritual powers. The\nMoravians, and the Irvinites or the Apostolicals, have their Bishops in\nEngland, and yet, they are not taxed with illegality. The Scotch Kirk,\nthe Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Independents, the\nPresbyterians, and all other Dissenters, appoint their Ministers for\nthemselves, and mark the limits of the separate districts, in which they\nare to exercise their spiritual authority, and yet, no one has the\npresumption, to question the legality of their exercising such authority\nin England. If therefore, all these various dissenting sects are allowed\nthese spiritual privileges, why should the English free-born Catholics,\nbe debarred from them?\n\nHer present Majesty was advised to erect, and did erect, (5 Vic. cap. 6.)\na Bishopric of Jerusalem, and assigned to it a diocese, in which the\nthree great Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were\nformed into one See, which had episcopal jurisdiction over Syria,\nChaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, and subject to further limitations, or\nalterations at the Royal Will. Now do any of these possessions belong to\nHer Majesty? No. But you may reply, there are in some, and may be in\nothers, British Protestants, and therefore, the Queen thought proper, to\nextend Her spiritual blessings to them. Granted. Why therefore, has not\nthe Pope, an equal right to extend _his_ spiritual blessings to the\nCatholics of England? It is plain then, that the Irish Catholics, and the\nCatholics of many of our Colonies, are allowed to exercise _their_\nspiritual rights unmolested, it is plain that all other dissenting sects,\nare allowed to enjoy in England the same spiritual privileges, and it is\nplain likewise, that the Queen assumes and exercises abroad, in the most\nindependent manner, Her spiritual powers, tell me then, in the name of\ncommon sense, by what law, either human, or divine, you wish to deprive\nthe English Catholics of the free exercise of _their_ spiritual rights?\n\nOh, but you will object, \"the Pope has assumed a right over us\nProtestants, he has parcelled out the land of England, he has named\nArchbishops and Bishops, and appointed them to rule over _us_, whom he\nimpudently styles heretics.\" To this objection, gentlemen, I reply, Do\nthe Catholics in England acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in _spiritual_\nmatters? Do the Dissenters of England acknowledge Her supremacy in\n_spiritual_ matters? No. Now divide the English population into two\nparts, and if you calculate accurately, you will find, that the greater\nhalf of the English population, consists of Catholics and Dissenters, who\ndo not acknowledge the Queen's _spiritual_ supremacy. But when the Queen\nissues Her Spiritual Instruments, or if you please, Bulls, does she not\nparcel out the land of England? Does she not name Archbishops, and\nBishops, and _apparently_ appoint them to rule over _us Catholics_ and\n_Dissenters_, in short, does _She_ not in those Spiritual Instruments, or\nBulls, _apparently_ assume over _us_ Catholics and Dissenters, the very\nsame spiritual power, which the Pope appears to assume, in His Bulls,\nover Protestant Englishmen? But do you ever hear of us Catholics, or\nDissenters, styling this an extraordinary movement on the part of the\nQueen? No. Because we have the common sense to know, that such parcelling\nout of the land, and such extension of Her _Spiritual_ Authority to her\nArchbishops, and Bishops, regard only the _real_ Protestants of the land,\nand that they have no more to do with us and the Dissenters, in a\n_spiritual_ point of view, than they have with the inhabitants of Turkey.\n\nIf you would likewise ask some of the limbs of the law, who attended your\nmeeting, they would inform you, that in Acts of Parliament, that in\ndeeds, and in the drawing up almost all the various instruments of the\nlaw, there are certain forms, which to _us_ appear most ridiculous, and\noutrageous, and if you questioned them on these points, and asked them,\nabout all this strange rigmarole of words and of phraseology, they would\ntell you, it is only a certain necessary form in law, and that although\nit may appear strange _to other_ people, still, it is perfectly\nunderstood _by all_, who are versed in the laws of the land.[D] Why\ncannot these gentlemen, therefore, have the good sense to extend this\nexplanation to the Pope's Bull, and then they would find this parcelling\nout the land by the Pope's Bull, and this delegation of spiritual power,\nof Archbishops, and Bishops, as if extending to Protestants, was a mere\nphantom of their own imagination, and that in reality, it regarded\n_none_, but the _spiritual_ subjects of the _Pope_ in this kingdom, and\nthat it did not regard _even them_, only in a _spiritual_, and _not_ in a\n_temporal_ point of view, either directly or indirectly.\n\nI observe, in your public notice for your meeting, two Dissenting\nMinisters, put their names to the requisition. Now, although the\nProtestant Church may _honour_ these gentlemen, with the name of\n_Reverend_, does it consider them to be ministers? It certainly does\nnot.[E] And I will prove it to you. If these Ministers were to go over to\nthe _Protestant_ Church, it would ordain them, and by that act, tell them\nthat _before_, they were mere _phantoms_ of Ministers, and that they had\n_never_ had any spiritual power, or jurisdiction whatever. If therefore\nthe orthodox Protestant gentleman, whose name stands so conspicuously\nbetween these two Dissenting Reverends, were to be asked, why he styled\nthem Reverends, when his own Church, considers them as mere phantoms of\nMinisters, what would he say? Of course he would tell us, it was a mere\nmatter of courtesy, for he was obliged to agree with his Church, that\nthey were mere phantoms of Ministers. Now, gentlemen, just apply this to\nthe Pope's Bull in _your_ regard. You read the Pope's Bull, and\nerroneously imagine that the spiritual powers, which it asserts, really\nregards (or is to regard) you Protestants. Whereas you ought to consider\nit, as a _mere phantom_ of _spiritual_ power in _your_ regard, and I\nmoreover add, you ought to consider it, as a mere phantom in any\n_temporal_ point of view, even as it regards _the Catholics_. Do this,\ngentlemen, and then, you will perceive, that the idea of it extending to\n_you_ Protestants, either in any _spiritual_, or _temporal_ point of\nview, whatever, is a mere chimera of your own imaginations.\n\nBut after all, I know many of you will _still_ urge, that the Pope may\n_gradually_ extend his _spiritual_ power over you, and then, by degrees\nextend his _temporal_ power over you, until at last, he has completely\nestablished over you his spiritual and temporal domination. Gentlemen, I\nwill answer this argument shortly indeed, but I hope satisfactorily, and\nI feel confident that, unless you are as the poet says,\n\n    \"Convince a man against his will,\n    He'll hold the same opinion still,\"\n\nyou will be convinced, from what I shall advance, that the above\nobjection, is another chimera of your own imaginations.\n\nTrue and genuine religion, must be founded on the free, and spontaneous\nconsent of the heart. If therefore, you Protestants ever allow the Pope,\nto extend his spiritual power over you, _without_ having _first_\nsincerely, and deliberately considered the _real_ grounds of the Catholic\nFaith, and of the Pope's title to spiritual supremacy, and without your\nhaving _first_ given your _free_, and _spontaneous_ consent to them, I\nhope you will forgive me, if I politely tell you, I should consider you\nas a set of religious donkeys, and that you ought not to be allowed to\n_bray_ in this free country.\n\nBut you will object, it will be _you_ Catholics headed by the Pope, that\nwill make us renounce the _Protestant_, and embrace the _Catholic_ faith.\nTo this objection I answer. First, the Catholics of England have promised\nto maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of their power, the\nsuccession to the crown. Now, this succession, by an act entitled, \"an\nact for the further limitation of the crown\", is, and stands limited to\nthe Princess Sophia, Electress, Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and to the\nheirs of her Body, _being Protestants_. Such are the very terms of the\noath, which we Catholics have taken; as long therefore, as the\nEstablished Church is secure of having a Protestant Sovereign, it cannot\nbe in any danger of subversion.\n\nSecondly. The Irish Catholics have gone still further, and to silence\neven the predictions of their enemies, have disclaimed, disavowed, and\nsolemnly abjured every intention, to subvert the present Church\nEstablishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment\nin its stead, and have solemnly sworn, that they will not exercise any\nprivilege, to which they are, or may be entitled, to disturb, or weaken\nthe Protestant religion in that kingdom.\n\nThirdly. But I will suppose for a moment, that the Catholics were at last\nto determine to perjure themselves, and to violate the promises, to\nwhich they are so solemnly pledged, let us see the obstacles, they would\nhave to surmount. First, there would be the Sovereign, the head of the\nProtestant Church, with the immense patronage of the Crown at her (or\nhis) disposal; secondly, there would be all the spiritual Peers, and with\nthe exception of a few Catholics, all the temporal Peers; thirdly, there\nwould be the great majority in the House of Commons, in proportion to at\nleast, ten Protestants to one Catholic. Now, by what spirit of magic, are\na _few_ Catholic Peers, to become the _majority_ of the House of Lords,\nor is _one_ Catholic Commoner, to outvote _ten_ Protestants. By what\nmiracle, is the Queen (or King) to abandon the defence of _that_ Church,\nof which she (or he) is by conviction a member, and by law, supreme head?\nBy what manoeuvres, are the Catholics so to blind the confidence of the\nSovereign, as to worm themselves into the possession of all places, of\npower, and trust? Before the Catholics can aid the Pope to extend his\ntemporal or spiritual power over you Protestants, they will have to\nsurmount all the above obstacles. But by what human power can they ever\nsurmount the above obstacles? Really, gentlemen, is it not childish to\ntalk either about Catholics forcing you to become Catholics, or their\nwishing to aid the Pope, to extend his spiritual or temporal domination\nover you Protestants, with all the above obstacles staring you in the\nface.\n\nBut, gentlemen, if on the other hand, you should think proper to\nseriously, and conscientiously, examine the _real_ grounds of the\nCatholic religion, and if you should think proper, to examine\n_seriously_, and _conscientiously_, whether the Pope, is the _real_\nsuccessor of Saint Peter, and of course in that case, the _real_\nspiritual head of Christ's Church, if you should ask yourselves the\nreason, why the Catholic Faith, has been the belief of the most\nextensive, and enlightened nations of Europe, and of the most illustrious\ncharacters, that ever did honour to the name of man,[F] if upon careful\ninvestigation, you should find that the Catholic Faith, was the faith of\nthose, who built our Cathedrals, who erected our Universities, who laid\nthe foundation of our envied Constitution, and who secured the great\ncharter of our rights at Runnymede, in short, if you should find that the\nmembers of this creed, have in every age, stood forth the champions of\nliberty, and at the same time remained faithful worshippers of God, if\nafter the most careful, and impartial investigation, you should find all\nthese things to be real, and undeniable facts, _then_ I would address you\nin the words, with which St. Paul addressed King Agrippa, \"I would to\nGod, that both in little, and in much, not only thou, but also, all that\nhear me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds.\"\n(Acts, ch. xxvi., v. 28.) Yes, gentlemen, I repeat it, if after the most\nserious, and minute investigation, you should find the above things\n_real_, and _undeniable_ facts, _then_, gentlemen, the sincere wish of my\nheart would be, that you might all become Catholics, and the _spiritual_\nchildren of the head of our Church, but, _mind_, without our bonds, that\nis, without having to suffer, what our Catholic ancestors had to suffer\nfor their faith,[G] a faith, which they conscientiously held as their\nbest inheritance, and which, they held more dear, than life itself.\n\nI would also address you in the words, in which Gamaliel, a doctor of the\nlaw, addressed the Jewish Council respecting the Apostles, who were\nunjustly cast into prison. \"And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain\nfrom these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel, or this work, be\nof men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow\nit, lest perhaps, even you be found to fight against God.\" (Acts, ch. 5,\nv. 38, 39.) Gentlemen, if the Catholic Faith, be an invention of _human_\ncounsel, and a work of _human_ policy, rest assured, it will of _itself_\ncrumble into nought, but if it be _of God_, and if it be the _will of\nGod_, that England should return to her ancient faith, you cannot\noverthrow it, and you cannot fight against God, for as the wise man says,\n\"there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against\nthe Lord.\" (Prov. ch. xxi., v. 30.)\n\nGentlemen, I think you must acknowledge, that I have answered, shortly\nindeed, but I hope satisfactorily, your objection, as to the Pope's\ngradually extending his _spiritual_, and temporal domination over you\nProtestants. Gentlemen, I am not aware, that any one at your meeting, was\nso uncourteous as to throw in the face of Catholics, either the\nGunpowder, or Oates' plots. Still, you are aware, that it has been done\nat _many_ of the late meetings, and in many places of England, to the\ninjustice of Catholics. Allow me, to solicit your attention, whilst I say\na few words respecting each of these plots, and whilst I show you, it is\nmost unjust to throw those diabolical plots in the face of Catholics,\neither of the present, or of former ages.\n\nThe Guy Fawkes plot, or as it is usually termed, the Gunpowder Plot, is\noften sneeringly, and insultingly thrown in the face of Catholics. Now\nlet it be remembered, that the original conspirators were only eight in\nnumber, that they were also of the most abandoned character, and that\nsome of them, years before, had abjured the Catholic faith, and let it\nalso be remembered, that this plot was disclosed even by a Catholic, Lord\nMonteagle, and that the Pope in a letter expressed his detestation of it,\nand ordered the Catholic clergy, to prevent by all means in their power,\nall similar conspiracies, and to exhort the people to patience and\nobedience. Now I ask, is it reasonable, that the wicked deeds of these\nfew and abandoned conspirators, should be thrown in the face of the whole\nbody of Catholics; as well might you upbraid our Saviour with the crimes\nof Judas. The plot was unknown to all good Catholics, they had nothing\nwhatever to do with it, and it, and all other plotting whatever, were\ncondemned and forbidden in the most severe manner, by the Clergy and the\nPope. What could Catholics do more? Why, therefore, are the Catholics of\nthe present times to be condemned for a plot with which they had no more\nto do, than the Protestants of the present day? But I will suppose for a\nmoment, this diabolical plot was concocted by real Catholics. Can it be\nunreasonably urged, against the Catholics of the present day? If you\nanswer, yes, I will then prove that the Ministers who attended your\nmeeting, were cursers, murderers, and deserters of Christ. For if you ask\neach of them, if he is a minister of Christ, he will answer, certainly.\nWell, then, one of the Apostles betrayed our Saviour, another by oaths\nand curses, denied him, and all deserted him on the night of his passion.\nNow, if the above line of argumentation, against Catholics be valid, then\nI may conclude, that the Ministers who attended your meeting, were\nmurderers, cursers, deniers, and deserters of Christ. Really, if I were\nto adopt this mode of argumentation against them, you would think, and\njustly, the _upper stories_ of my intellect were of a very strange\nstructure. How can persons, therefore, have the barefacedness to apply\nsuch reasoning to the Catholics of the present day, respecting the\nGunpowder Plot.\n\nWhoever will read the history of Titus Oates's Plot, will find that it\nwas concocted against the Catholics, by some of the brightest characters\nfor rascality, and perjury, and infamy, and cruelty, that the world ever\nbeheld. Oates' plot consisted in this, that he accused the Catholics, and\nJesuits in particular, of a plot, to murder King Charles the II., (1678),\nto transfer the sovereignty of the realm to the Pope, and to extirpate\nthe Protestant religion from the land. But was not Titus Oates himself a\n_Jesuit_, or at least, a _Catholic_? You shall hear who Titus Oates was,\nfrom the _pen_ of _Protestant_ Historians.\n\n\"Oates, the former of this dreadful plot, was himself the most infamous\nof mankind. He was the son of an Anabaptist preacher, took orders in the\nChurch of England, became chaplain on board the fleet, and was dismissed\nfor some unnatural practices, not fit to be named.\" (See Hume's History.)\nYou shall hear too, who his accomplices were; \"Bedloe, a man, if\n_possible_, more infamous than Oates himself;\" (See Hume's History.) And\nthese were soon backed by others. \"A wretch, named Carstairs led the way,\nand soon, from all the brothels, gambling houses, and spunging houses of\nLondon, _false witnesses_ poured in, to swear away the lives of Roman\nCatholics.\" (See Macaulay's History of England.) And yet, on the\nbarefaced testimony, of these abandoned, and infamous wretches, the\nCatholic Noblemen and Gentlemen, were, with the exception of the Duke of\nYork, expelled from their seats in Parliament. Some of them, (although as\ninnocent of the crimes of which they were accused, as the new-born babe),\nwere tried, and executed on the false, and contradictory evidence, of\nthese base wretches. All of them, died protesting their innocence; and\nmany of them, embraced the opportunity to declare their abhorrence, of\nthe doctrines so commonly, but so unjustly, attributed to Catholics.\nTheir speeches at the place of execution, are still on record. (See \"A\nRemonstrance of Piety and Innocence,\" 1683. Dodd's History, vol. iii., p.\n356.) And if ever a man, may be believed to speak with sincerity, it is\nwhen, in the full possession of his senses, he stands on the brink of\neternity, and expects the next moment, to be presented before an\nOmniscient Judge. One of them, Lord Stafford, referred the Peers, at his\ntrial, for an account of his religious creed, to a small tract, entitled\n\"Catholic Principles.\" This small tract has often been printed, and was\nthen, and is still, considered to convey an accurate notion of the\nCatholic faith. Well may Hume say, that \"this Popish plot, is an\nincident, which, for the credit of the nation, it were better to bury in\neternal oblivion, but which it is necessary to perpetuate, both for the\ntruth of history, and to warn, if possible, their posterity, and all\nmankind, never again to fall into so _shameful_, so _barbarous_ a\n_delusion_.\" (See Hume's History.) And yet Oates was rewarded with\nappointments in the Royal Palace, and had L1200 a year assigned him, as\nthe wages of his iniquity, and Bedloe L500: and Oates was called \"the\nSaviour of the nation.\"\n\nBut how did these wretches come off at last? You shall hear again, from\nMr. Macaulay. About seven years later, when the madness, and the delusion\nof the people, had passed away, it was resolved, to bring these\nwretches, who had spilled so much blood, to their _own_ trial. \"Some of\nthe wretches,\" (says Macaulay) \"were already beyond the reach of justice.\nBedloe had died in his wickedness, without one sign of remorse or shame.\nDugdale had followed him to the grave, driven mad by the furies of an\nevil conscience, and with loud shrieks, imploring those, who stood around\nhis bed, to take away Lord Stafford. (A Catholic Lord, whose life he had\nsworn away, seven years ago.) Carstairs, too, was gone. His end, was all\nhorror, and despair, and with his last breath, he told his attendants to\nthrow him into a ditch, like a dog, for that he was not fit, to sleep in\nChristian burial ground.\" Mr. Macaulay thus describes Oates' appearance,\nat _his_ trial. \"A few years earlier, his short neck, his legs uneven, as\nthose of a badger, his forehead low, as that of a baboon, his purple\ncheeks, and monstrous length of chin, had been familiar to all, who\nfrequented the courts of law. He had been the idol of the nation--men had\nuncovered their heads to him, and called him, the deliverer of his\ncountry. They _now shuddered_ at the sight of the _hideous_ features, on\nwhich _villany_ seemed to be written, by the _hand of God_.\" (See\nMacaulay's History of England.) Horrible as were the sufferings of Oates,\nthey did not equal his crimes. Such, gentlemen, is a short, but true\naccount of Titus Oates's Plot, and of his abandoned, and perjured\naccomplices. And yet, some have the audacity to throw this infamous plot,\nin the face of the Catholics, even at the present day. To such I would\nsay, \"you are either ignorant of history, or not; if you are ignorant of\nhistory, it is the part of a simpleton, to talk on subjects which he does\nnot understand.\" But if you are acquainted with history, I beg to address\nyou in the words of the poet--\n\n    \"A moral, sensible, and well bred man,\n    Will not offend me, and no other can.\"\n\nGentlemen, I now appeal to you, if it is not evident from what I have\nadvanced in the preceding pages, that the late crusade against Catholics,\nhas been most unjust, and most cruel. If you will seriously, and coolly,\nand impartially consider what has been advanced, you must be convinced,\nthat all your alarms, and those of many other Englishmen, are mere\nchimeras of your own imaginations. But if, to some of you, the above\nreasoning does not appear satisfactory, I am sure it will to every\nsensible and unbiased Englishman. Englishmen, indeed, like all other\nnations, have _their faults_, and _their perfections_. In times of\ngeneral excitement, and of public panic, nothing is too absurd, for their\ncredulity. In the hour of excitement, and of public panic, _pigmies_,\nappear _giants_ to them, and _mole-hills_, swell into _mountains_.\nWitness the late railway mania. This mania, spread like wildfire, through\nthe higher, the middle, and even the lower classes, and threw the whole\nnation, into a fever of excitement. Before their excited imaginations,\nrose the golden dreams of their _six_, and _eight_, and _ten_ per cent.,\nof railways, as the _best_ and _surest_ investment for their property, in\nshort, as the easiest and most direct means, of turning their mole-hills\nof money into mountains of gold. _In vain_, were Englishmen warned, and\ncautioned by _sensible_, and _thinking_ persons, _against_ these _golden_\nprospects of their excited imaginations. Convinced, they either _would\nnot_, or _could not_ be. But lo! the mighty bubble burst, and then, to\ntheir loss, and sorrow, they both _saw_, and _acknowledged_ the _folly_\nof their former excitement, of their _railway golden dreams_.\n\nAgain, I say, when Englishmen return to their _cooler_ moments, and\n_seriously_ reflect, on all the _late hubbub_, about _Pope's Bulls_, and\n_Guy Fawkes_, and _Gunpowder Plots_, and _Catholic Mummeries and\nSuperstitions_, I feel confident, they will verify the words of Dr.\nHughes, the Catholic Prelate of New York, who lately preached in London,\non his way to Rome. \"I am sure (says this distinguished Prelate,) that\nthis great, and liberal nation, (England) _will_, after this _temporary_\nexcitement is _over_, _be ashamed_ of their _present_ conduct, and will\nbe _astonished_, how they could _ever think_, of proposing any steps,\nwhich tended to _abridge_, the _liberty_ of _any_ portion, of their\ncountrymen, and violate that freedom in religion, which _is their boast_.\nThe (English) Ministry _cannot_ go _one_ step back, upon the track of\n_persecutions_, if they make but _one_ step, in _that_ direction, they\nwill be _condemned_, by _every liberal_ minded man, and will be looked\nupon, with _contempt_ by the _rest_ of the nations of the _world_.\" (Dr.\nHughes' Sermon. London, December 1st, 1850.)\n\nHence we find, that _most_, of the _great_ and _enlightened_ statesmen of\n_England_, always _boldly_, and _freely_, advocated the freedom, and\nliberties of the _Catholics_. _As long_, as we retain _any_ respect for\ngenius, and discernment, for Parliamentary eloquence, and political\nwisdom, the names of Pitt, and of Fox, of Burke, and of Windham, of\nCanning, and of Peel, will stand _foremost_, in the _public_ estimation.\nThese eminent statesmen, however they might _differ_ on _other_ subjects,\nconcurred in supporting the _cause_ of the _Catholics_. _Their's_ was the\nconviction of _liberal_, and _enlightened_ minds, who forgot the\ndistinctions of _party_, in their _zeal_, to serve the cause of\n_justice_, and of _freedom_. Yes, they _well knew_, that the _British_\nConstitution, was _not_ a constitution of _restraints_, and _penalties_,\nthat it was _framed_ to preserve the rights of _freemen_, that it was\nformed, for the _whole_, not for a _part_, and that it was destined, like\nthe sun, to shed its benign influence _upon all_. And _hence_, they knew,\nthat they could not _better_ consult its _prosperity_ and _stability_,\nthan by fearlessly, and manfully battling, for _equal_ rights, and\n_equal_ justice _to all_.\n\nGentlemen, I must now beg leave to retire, as my presence is required, in\na _more august_ assembly. You know, your address to the Magistrates for\ncalling a meeting, &c., was _headed_ by certain Protestant Ministers, and\nyou know also, that most of their fellow labourers in the vineyard, of\nthe Protestant Church, have been most _active_, and _zealous_ in the\n_late_ crusade against the _Catholics_. Now, to pass over these reverend\ngentlemen with _silent_ contempt, would be, in my humble opinion, an act\nof great _incivility_, and _disrespect_ on _my_ part; and which, _they_\nmight perhaps consider, _a most extraordinary_, and _presumptuous\nmovement_, on _my_ part; I beg leave, gentlemen, therefore, to adjourn to\nthis _august_ assembly, and as I shall have to show these reverend\ngentlemen, what \"an extraordinary and presumptuous movement,\" _their\nProtestant_ Church, has been making, _for a long time_, on the _pockets_,\nand on the _intellects_ of Englishmen, I shall be very glad, if you will\naccompany me, and see verified the poetical words of my two texts,\nannexed to my first _little_ address to you--\n\n    \"I would you had been there to see\n    How the light blazed up so gloriously.\"\n\n          \"And then in naked majesty,\n    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,\n    Came truth.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[A] Lingard's Anglo-Saxon, vol. 1, p. 189, 190.\n\n[B] Macaulay, tells us, that the number of Roman Catholics is not fewer\nthan 150,000,000, and that it would be difficult to shew that all the\nother Christian sects united, amount, to 120,000,000. I quite agree with\nhis words, \"not fewer,\" and \"it would be difficult to shew;\" for upon an\naccurate calculation, it would be found that the Catholics amount nearer\nto 200,000,000, than to 150,000,000, and that all the other Christian\nsects, united into one body, are nearer 100,000,000, than 120,000,000.\nHowever, Macaulay's statement is quite sufficient to prove what we have\ncited it for, viz:--that the Roman Catholics are the greatest body of\nChristians, and therefore have the best title to the ancient and\nhonourable name of Catholic.\n\n[C] In the Apostle's Creed, _we all_ profess to believe in the _Holy\nCatholic_ Church. Now, if this is not _our_ Church, I would ask, what\nChurch _is it_? Is it the collection of sects which have sprung from the\nReformation? But, then, it would not be _Catholic_, for as they are the\nsmaller number, they cannot claim universality. Is it the Theological\nhodge-podge, the farrago of all the religions, which believe in the\nGospel? Then it cannot be _Holy_, for we should form the _principal_ part\nof it, and you know, the immaculate Church of England tells us, our\ndoctrines are idolatrous. I really think, people had better leave us in\nthe _quiet_ possession of our old inheritance, the honourable and ancient\nname of Catholic, and _then_ they would avoid the above ridiculous\nconsequences.\n\n[D] I have sometimes been asked, and the question has sometimes been\nslyly popped to me, and to others, by certain limbs of the law, if I was\na _Jesuit_? I answer first, that I have not the honour to belong to that\nlearned, and much calumniated body, the Jesuits. I answer secondly, I\nperfectly understood the _sly_ drift of these _questions_, and\n_inuendoes_. It was as good as to say, \"Jesuitism is a strange compound\nof all kinds of tricks and quirks, and of mental reservations, and\ndeceptions. Now this little spectacle fellow, is one of them, and\ntherefore, he is up to all the Jesuitical trade, and is a perfect\nspecimen of it. Nay, I believe, that he could slyly board us with his\nJesuitical tricks, _even_ while we were looking on.\" Well, one good turn\ncertainly deserves another. And now, I must as politely as I can, tell\nthese limbs of the law, that if I am to judge of the law from the little,\nthat I have really seen, and know about _them_, and that if Jesuitism be\n_really_, what they _imagine_ it is, and if the whole of England ever\nbecame Catholic, and then, from Catholicism jumped to Jesuitism, in this\ncase, I certainly think that these limbs of the law, will not have to\nstudy, the celestial arts of Jesuitism, as pourtrayed in their own\nimagination; for they will be _already_, perfectly dubbed masters of\nIsrael in that art, and they will certainly occupy distinguished places,\nin the various departments of _mental reservations_, pious frauds, and\ncharitable tricks and quirks upon their neighbour's pockets. Really this\nreminds me of Paddy, who had just arrived from Ireland, and was\n_sneeringly_ asked by a _busy_ Englishman, what kind of a crop of\nMurphies, they had had in Ireland? Pat had a shillalah in his hand, he up\nwith it, knocked down the Englishman, and said; \"And sure your honour, we\nhave had a very good crop of Murphies, and you may know it by the feel,\nfor that is the stalk of one.\" Now, I hope these limbs of the law, will\nnot be offended at me for taking up my spectacle shillalah, and just\npolitely flooring them, for their _Jesuitical inuendoes_ and _mental\nreservations_ in my regard. I hope they will not be offended, at my\ndefending myself, for their own profession will teach them, that every\none is allowed fair play, whether he be a metamorphosed calumniated\nJesuit, or a limb of the law in the body of a man's pocket. But far be it\nfrom me to adopt their extensive, and sweeping mode of argumentation,\nviz., the law of the land is a heap of deceptions, and tricks, now such a\nman is a lawyer, therefore he must be a sleight-of-hand gentleman in that\nart. Before I make this sweeping conclusion, I ought _first_, to examine\nseriously, and carefully, if the law _really is_, this strange compound\nof deceptions, and I ought then, to examine and really know, that this\nlawyer has really acted according to this deception, I ought to do this,\nbefore I condemn him personally, or open the flood-gates of condemnation\non the whole respectable body of lawyers. This is the argumentation which\nreason and justice tell me I ought to adopt. Now just let these limbs of\nthe law, adopt this line of argumentation with regard to Jesuitism and\nJesuits, and then, they will be both limbs of the law, and limbs of fair\nplay.\n\n[E] But some one will perhaps inquire, does the Protestant Church\nconsider _your_ Catholic Ministers _really_ ordained? I reply she does,\nfor were any Catholic Priest to go over to the Protestant Church, she\nwould not ordain him. And why? Because the Protestant Church got her\nordinations (if she has any) from us, and to question _our_ ordination,\nwould be to strike at the foundation of _her own_.\n\n[F] \"Catholicity, which has been this night, the subject of so much\nabuse, has been the belief of the most extensive, and enlightened nations\nin Europe, and of the most illustrious characters, that ever did honour\nto the name of man.\"--(Speech of Lord Hutchinson in the House of Lords,\nMay 10th, 1805.)\n\n[G] The following are the words of Mr. Cobbett, a protestant, writer\nrespecting the introduction of the Protestant religion into these realms.\n\"The Queen (Elizabeth) reigned for forty five years, and these forty-five\nyears, were spent in deeds of such cruelty, as the world had never heard\nof, or read of before; and all for the purpose of compelling her people,\nto submit to this established (Protestant) Church. With regard to the\ncruelties of this monster, in woman's shape, her butcherings, her\nrippings up, her tearing out of the bowels of her subjects, her torments\nof every description, in which she was always cordially supported, by the\nlawgiving makers of the (Protestant) prayer book, I must refer the\nreader, to my history of the Protestant reformation; suffice it to say\n(here), that in these forty-five years, which were employed in the\nestablishing of this Church, there were more cruelty, more bloodshed,\nmore suffering, than ever were witnessed in the world, in any other\ncountry in a like period of time.\" (Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, p. 38.)\n\n\n\n\nAN ADDRESS\n\nTO THE\n\nCLERGYMEN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\n\"A marvellous project, (is) i'faith, and a merry jest withal!\"\n\n\nMOST REVEREND GENTLEMEN,\n\nYou cannot be _surprised_, that I have _not_ taken my text from the\n_Scripture_, for many of you tell the people, that we _Catholic_\nClergymen wish to conceal from the people that sacred volume. To have,\ntherefore, taken my text from the _Scripture_ for the _sake_ of the\n_people_, would be like falsifying your words, and to have quoted it for\nyour instructions, would have been most presumptuous on my part, as every\none knows you are masters of Israel, both in word and deed, in the\nknowledge of that sacred volume. Had I, therefore, been so presumptuous\nas to have quoted Scripture for _your_ information, you might have\nperhaps addressed me in the words of the Poet--\n\n    \"Ye Popish blockheads, mitred Cambridge cries,\n    Begone; I and my friends alone are wise,\n    Rich with the spoils of Babylon, 'tis fit\n    That _we_ should claim monopoly of wit.\"\n\nWell, among the great diffusion of biblical knowledge, which has been so\n_gloriously_ spread among the people by your Scriptural Church, as by Law\nestablished, I happened one day _fortunately_ to hear, that you\nReverends often told the people, that there was a golden and heavenly\nrule in the Scriptures, viz.:--_that they were never to do unto others,\nwhat they would not wish others to do unto them_. Now we cannot for a\nmoment suppose, that like spiritual guide-posts, _you_ would wish to\ninculcate this golden rule to _others_, and not follow it _yourselves_.\nWell then, you have been _lately_ trying to arouse the indignation of the\npeople, by informing them in the most _dignified_ manner, that the Pope\nof Rome has just made a most \"extraordinary, and presumptuous movement\"\non the Protestants of England. Now what shall we say, if it turn out,\nthat you and _your Reverend_ Protestant ancestors, have for a long time\nbeen making a \"most extraordinary, and presumptuous movement\" on the\n_pockets_, and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen?\n\nLet us then proceed to examine _coolly_, and _calmly_, the above points.\nI will endeavour, most Reverend Gentlemen, to discuss these points with\nas much temper, and forbearance as I possibly can. But, you must\nremember, that _you_ and many of _your_ Reverend body, have been\nendeavouring to convict, _without ceremony_, the _numerous_ and\n_respectable_ Catholic body of England, of the crimes of wishing to\nextend their _popish spiritual_ and _temporal_ domination over the\nProtestants of England. For this purpose, your zealous and Reverend body\nhave, with pious industry, raked together the filth of ancient\ncontroversy, and poured it _without mercy_ on the heads of Catholics, and\non that Church, of which it is my pride to be a minister. Now, Reverend\nGentlemen, _you_, who deal so copiously in hard words, certainly ought\nnot to complain, if you should happen sometimes, to meet with them in\nreturn. If _you_ demand respect from _others_, you ought certainly to\nrespect a _more numerous body_ of Christians, (I mean the Catholic\nChristian world,) who have no reason to think themselves, your inferiors\nin talent, learning, or judgment. Well then, let us now proceed to the\ndiscussion of the above two points.\n\nMost Reverend Gentlemen, in a book (but _mind_ not the _Scripture_)\ncalled the _extraordinary_ Black Book, published in London in the year\n1831, by Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange, I find the following\nstatement of the income of the Church of England as by Law established.\nOf course, I am aware, that certain changes have been made by Government\n(since the publication of the above book) as to the amount of individual\nincomes, but the _aggregate_ sum is still absorbed by the Protestant\nChurch, as by Law established. Well then, in the above-mentioned,\nextraordinary Black Book, I find the various incomes of the Church of\nEngland there stated, and would you believe it! they form a sum of money,\nTO THE TUNE _of nine millions, four hundred and fifty-two thousands, five\nhundred and sixty-five pounds per annum_.\n\nNow let us see, how well the Bishops, and Archbishops of the Reformation,\nhave thriven on the above _spiritual_ food. The following is an extract\nfrom the probate duty returns, and of course, must be _real_ testimony as\nto the _worth_ of these _poor in spirit_ children, when they awoke \"in\nthat undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveller returns.\"\n\n  EXTRACT FROM PROBATE OF WILLS.\n\n                                                      L\n  Stopford, Bishop of Cork, left his family        25,000\n  Percy, Bishop of Dromore                         40,000\n  Cleaver, Bishop of Ferns                         50,000\n  Bernard, Bishop of Limerick                      60,000\n  Knox, Bishop of Killaloe                        100,000\n  Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin                    150,000\n  Beresford, Archbishop of Tuam                   250,000\n  Porter, Bishop of Clogher                       250,000\n  Hawkins, Bishop of Raphoe                       250,000\n  Agur, Archbishop of Cashel                      400,000\n  Bishop Warburton                                500,000\n\nNow just add up the above items, and then, you will see that these\n_Protestant_ Bishops and Archbishops, _after_ maintaining themselves,\ntheir wives and families, left _behind_ them, according to the probate\nduty returns, _no less than the enormous sum of two millions and\nseventy-five thousand pounds sterling_. Really, when these _mammon-godly_\nsouls entered the gates of heaven, with all these paraphernalia of gold,\nhow amazed must the celestial inmates have been! They would wonder\nwhence these _golden_ spirits came, but of this they would be convinced,\nthat they must have come from the land of the _living_, and had certainly\n_piously_ reformed the words of the Scripture, \"Blessed are the poor in\nspirit,\" and really verified the words of my text, \"What a _marvellous_\nproject is faith, and a _merry_ jest withal!\"\n\nSo far, Reverend Gentlemen, I think the people will begin to conclude,\nthat your Reverend body has, for some time, been making a most\n\"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the _pockets_ of Englishmen,\nand would to heaven! I could stop here. But I must _now_ show the people\nof England, that _your Protestant_ Church as by Law established, is\nreceiving more money by _four hundred and fifty-three thousands, five\nhundred and sixty-five pounds_, than all the other Christian churches in\nthe _whole_ world. The above _extraordinary_ Black Book, gives a scale of\nthe _comparative_ expenses of the Church of _England_, and of all the\nother _Christian_ churches in the _whole_ world. Now by this scale, it is\nshown that the _total_ income of all the Christian churches in the\nvarious parts of the world, is eight millions nine hundred and\nninety-nine thousand pounds; and the above scale shows, that the income\nof the Church of _England_, is nine millions, four hundred and fifty-two\nthousands, five hundred and sixty-five pounds. Now, if you will just\nplace the _smaller_ of these under the _larger_ number, and subtract the\none from the other, you will see that the _income_ of the Protestant\nChurch _in England_, exceeds the total income of _all_ the other\n_Christian_ churches in the whole world, by _four hundred and fifty-three\nthousands, five hundred and sixty-five pounds_. Oh, mighty England! thou\nboastest, _and justly_, that thy majestic fleet rides on the waves, the\ntriumphant mistress of the seas; and thou mayest also _as truly_, but not\n_so justly_, boast, that thy _Scriptural_ Church, as by Law\n_established_, rides triumphant on the _golden_ waves of _mammon_, and\nthat she is _really mistress_ of the world, _in point of mammon_; she is\n_truly_ the _grand_ and _golden_ emporium of _clerical_ incomes. Oh, how\njustly may the ministers of this Church, address her, as their golden\ncalf, in these words of the Scripture, \"Where _thou_ goest, _I_ will go;\nand where _thou_ lodgest, _I_ will lodge; and _thy_ people shall be _my_\npeople.\" (Ruth i. 16.) \"Yea! and we will kill the fatted calf, and slay\nthe rams, and make _merry_.\" (Prov. v. 9.)\n\nBut you will reply, we got all this money from _you papists_. Yes,\ncourteous clerks, to the _honour_ of the Catholic Church be it said, that\nall this money was left by our _charitable_ ancestors; and I will now\njudge you from _your own_ mouths. _Mind_ and _mark it well_, that in the\n_Catholic_ times of old England, the above sums of money were divided\ninto _three_ parts: _one_ for the maintenance of the clergy, the _second_\nfor the repair of the churches, and the _third_ for the support of the\n_poor_. In those good old _Catholic_ times, there were no church-rates,\nnor poor-rates. But your _god-like_ church as by law established, thought\nit more just, or at least _convenient_, to pocket _herself_ the _whole_\nof the above sum, and to leave to the _public_ the charitable office, of\nproviding for the other _two_ purposes. Really, Most Reverend Gentlemen,\nI candidly appeal to you, if this was not \"a most extraordinary and\npresumptuous movement\" of your clerical ancestors on the _pockets_ of the\npeople; and _really_, must not people of the _present_ day think it \"a\nmost extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the part of you Reverend\nGentlemen, to continue these _pious_ frauds, and _godly_ practices of\nyour ancestors? In _this_, at least, you _fully_ observe the commands of\nthe _Scripture_, \"Remove not the landmark of thy forefathers.\" Oh ye\npoor! (whom I sincerely love for the sake of my Saviour,) when I enter\nyour hovels, where sickness, misery, and want meet together, and witness\nthe scenes of distress that are passing there;--when I see a few handfuls\nof dying embers, that are calculated rather to starve you, than afford\nyou the necessary comforts of warmth;--when I see the bed of\nwretchedness, on which you cast your wearied limbs;--when I view the\ntattered clothes, which scarcely cover you decently, much less protect\nyou from the inclemency of the weather;--when I behold your pale and\nsickly countenances, that bespeak the poorness and scarcity of your\nfood;--when I view your poor little children, begging in vain, with tears\nof artless innocence, a morsel of bread to satisfy the cravings of\nhunger;--when I witness scenes of this heart-rending description, (scenes\nwhich are not very uncommon now-a-days), the _charity_ of our _Catholic_\nancestors, and the _inhumanity_ of _your_ Church as by law established,\nrush vividly on my mind, and call to my recollection the words of our\nSaviour, \"Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess ye the kingdom prepared\nfor you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave\nme to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink. I was a stranger, and\nyou took me in; naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me; I\nwas in prison, and you came to me. Then he shall say to them also that\nshall be on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting\nfire, which was prepared for the devil, and his angels. For I was hungry,\nand you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.\nI was a stranger, and you took me not in; naked, and you covered me not;\nsick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer\nhim, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a\nstranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?\nThen he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did\nit not to one of these least,\" (namely the poor), \"neither did you do it\nto me.\" (St. Matt. xxv. 34 to 45.) Oh how _strikingly_ does the _first_\npart of this sacred passage apply to _our charitable_ Catholic ancestors?\nBut shall I apply the second part to _you_, or _your_ Protestant\nancestors? Oh! heaven forbid I should! I say with the great St. Paul, I\njudge no man; but charity for you, and the poor, induce me to entreat of\nyou, and to ask of God to give you His grace, to commence a real reform\nin your _church property_, for the _sake_ of the _poor_, and to restore\nto the _poor_, what your Protestant ancestors so _unjustly_ took from\nthem.\n\nBut you will perhaps reply, that all this church property, has been\n_justly_ given to your Protestant Church, by the _law_ of the _land_; for\nas the law of the land, _justly_ secures _to the landlord, his rents_, so\nthe law of the land, _justly_ secures to _your church, the tithes_. I\nanswer, in the first place, that by no law, either human, or divine, can\nproperty be _justly_ applied to any _other_ purpose, than to _that_ for\nwhich the _intention_ of the testator left it. Now one-third of this\nchurch property, was left by our _Catholic_ ancestors, for the support of\nthe _poor_; and _as long_ as this property, was in the hands of the\n_Catholic Church_, the poor always received _their just_ share. Hence,\namong _all_ the calumnies against the _Catholic_ Church, even her\n_basest_ enemies, could _never_ accuse her of _injustice to the poor_. I\nanswer secondly, the law of the land, as to _landlords_, is a _good_ law,\nbecause the landlord gives to his tenant _value_ (viz., the use of the\nland) for what he (the landlord) receives; whereas the law of tithes is a\n_bad_ law, because it often exacts tithes, where the payer has never\nreceived, _one farthing_ of value from the _parson_. Now in this case, it\ndoes appear to me (and I am sure it must to many others) most unjust to\ndemand it _from persons_, who never received a _pin's-worth_ of good,\nfrom _your_ ministry in their lives. Nay, perhaps the _only return_ they\ngot, for the payment of their tithes was, to hear their religion\n_abused_, and to be held up before the public, as guilty of those _very_\ncrimes, which _these_ reverends _themselves_ were _really_ committing,\neither by their robbing the poor of their just share, or by unjustly\nexacting from _others_ money, for which the _payers_ had never received\none farthing of value.[H]\n\nAnd now, most Reverend Gentlemen, I must just let the people see, how you\ncontrive to blind them, by throwing _popish_ dust into their eyes. All\nthe noise, which you make, _about the pope's bulls, and about popish\nspiritual and temporal domination_, is a mere _ruse de guerre_ of _many_\nof you, (some of you indeed, I believe, are sincere in your motives, and\nactions,) to divert _public_ attention, from the _great temporalities_\nof the established Church. You call, and hold your public and glorious\nmeetings. With upturned hands and eyes, with high-_souled_ strains of\n_devotional_ eloquence, with cordial community of feeling, got up between\nthe _established_ Church, and _those_ whom you indeed honour _with your\nlips_ by the title of reverends, but whom, _in your hearts_, you deem\n_mere phantoms_ of ministers, with silvery tones, and well-turned\nperiods, of _rag-tag_ and _bob-tail_ inspirations; you excite the\nbreathless attention of your audience, and profess the _most sanctified_\nattachment to your _godly_ Church, and to your glorious Constitution,\nunder the protection of whose wing, _you_ are _slyly_ basking in the\nsunshine of _godly_ mammon, and _worldly_ wealth. Should any poor\n_Catholic_, or _charitable dissenter_, (who wishes _you_ to _do_ to\n_others_ as _you_ would be _done_ by,) obtrude himself on the notice of\nyour meeting, a thundering philippic is _instantly_ raised against\n_popery_, and gaining strength and speed, and loudness in its progress,\nrumbles onward, until at last, it bursts forth into a _tremendous_\nelemental roar, increased by the zealous acclamations of an enraptured\nand fanatical audience. Oh, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is really a\n_glorious_, and _very profitable_ humbug. _As long_ as _you_ can manage,\nto keep the people in _this feverish state of excitement_, the gulls will\nthink more of _discussing pope's_ bulls, _Guy Fawkes's, and Gunpowder\nPlots_, than of _questioning_ the _moral_ basis of the law, which\nentitles _you_ to take from _the poor_, their _just_ share of _Church_\nproperty, left by _our charitable_ ancestors, and of exacting tithes and\nChurch-rates from _those_, who do not belong to _your_ flock, and _for\nwhom you do nothing in return_. Thus, you _successfully_ stave off the\n_discussion of Church_ property, professing all the while, the most\n_devotional_ concern for the _spiritual_ welfare of _the gulls_, on whose\n_pockets_, you are making a most 'extraordinary, and presumptuous\nmovement.' Thus _you_ reap the _profits_, and _laugh_ at the _fools_, who\nare _cajoled_ by _your grand_ displays. Really, most Reverend Gentlemen,\nthis extraordinary and presumptuous conduct, does, in my humble opinion,\n_beat all the powers of impudence_.[I]\n\nMost Reverend Gentlemen, I have now proved \"the extraordinary and\npresumptuous movement,\" which _your scriptural_ Church as by law\nestablished, has been making for a long time on the _pockets_ of\nEnglishmen. I must now proceed to show, what \"a most extraordinary and\npresumptuous movement\" she has been making for a long time, on the\n_intellects_ of Englishmen. Would to God that occasion had never been\ngiven to me to touch on _this_ subject! But remember, that _many_ of your\n_reverend_ body, have been _publicly_ advancing the most _pretty_, and\n_polite_ things against _us Catholics_. The newspapers, will bear ample\ntestimony to the _strange_, and _horrid_ things, which _many_ of your\n_reverends_, have _lately_ uttered against the Catholic Church. Now, what\nthey have in general uttered against us, is, _unfortunately_, _not_\nfounded on _truth_; but mind, what I shall advance is _really true_,\nalthough _most awful_, nay _almost_ incredible, had not your _Protestant_\ntestimonies borne _ample_ witness _to it_. Remember, also, that although\nOur Saviour was the _most_ meek, and kind creature that the world _ever_\nbeheld, _still_, when the _honour_ of His Heavenly Father was _insulted_\nand _outraged_, He cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Now,\nsome of your reverend body, have, in my ideas, lately used all their\nendeavours to insult, and outrage the Catholic Church, which, I consider,\nthe Temple of God. Pardon me, therefore, if I should with the spiritual\narms of _truth_, (and I hope of _charity_,) cast _them_ out of that\ntemple, and show the world, they had _better_ have been in _their own_\ntemple, and have tried to have _re_formed _it_, _before_ they had\nendeavoured to turn masters of Israel, in their _neighbours'_ temple.\n\nBut _this_, Reverend Gentlemen, I must say, that if the Catholic Church,\nhad _no better_ foundation than _declamation_ against the _Protestant_\nChurch, I would not be either a _minister_, or a _member_ of it for a\n_single_ day. But mind, the Catholic Church has both a _good_ foundation,\nand can also show the _flimsy_ texture of the _Protestant_ Church, when\nProtestant ministers are so _imprudent_ as to attack her.\n\nMost Reverend Gentlemen, I can only say, had _you_ remained quiet, _I_\nshould have been _innocent_ of the disagreeable task, of having to state\nthe following _awful_ facts. But as _you_ have not, I can only add, I am\n_innocent_ of the consequences, look _you_ to them. I will not indeed\nexclaim, with the Scripture, \"Its blood be upon you, and upon your\nchildren;\" but I will rather say, in the spirit of charity, may it bring\nyou, and your followers, to a serious consideration, and to a sense of\nduty. But some of you reverends will _perhaps_ infer, from the awful\ntruths which I shall advance, that I must believe that all, who are not\nof _our_ communion, must go to hell. _Appalling sentence!_ Christ\ncertainly has said, that he that will not hear the Church, is to be to\nus as a heathen and a publican (that is, excluded from our spiritual\ncommunion.) But Christ does not say, he will _go to hell_, much less,\ntherefore, ought _I_ to _rashly_ condemn him. St. Paul, also, warns us to\njudge _no man_, for this good reason, because _we, also_ shall have to\nstand before the tribunal of Christ. Far, therefore, be it from me to\nopen the flood-gates of damnation, even on a _single_ individual, much\nless on the _whole_ body of our Protestant brethren. Although, therefore,\nI shall shortly advance truths, most awful, and almost incredible, still,\nlet no one imagine, I mean anything PERSONAL. Oh, no, I will say with the\npoet--\n\n    \"Let not this weak unknowing hand,\n      Presume thy bolts to throw,\n    Or deal damnation round the land,\n      On all I judge thy foe.\"\n\nWell, then, let it be remembered, that I shall advance only undeniable\nfacts, without intending to deal damnation _on you_, or on the _whole_\nProtestant body.\n\n                      \"I (shall) only speak right on,\n    Yes, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,\n    That love my friends, and that they know full well,\n    Who gave me public cause to speak the truth.\n    I'll tell you _that_, which you yourselves _might_ know.\"\n\nA certain Spanish chemist, thought that _God's_ formation of his master,\nhad not been executed in the most perfect, and durable manner; and this\nchemist had the audacious presumption to imagine, that if he demolished\nhis master, he could raise him to life again, to a more perfect, and\ndurable specimen of workmanship, than he was, when God first made him.\nFor this purpose, this audacious chemist cut his master into pieces, and\nput the various parts into his sublimatory glass, with the design of\nraising his master again, by chemical operation, to a more durable, and\nperfect state of life than he was, when he was the handiwork of _God's_\nformation. Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I will not apply this to your\nChurch, but _this_ I will do, I will show you what the Church _was_, and\n_is_, which the fathers of the Reformation wished first to demolish, on\naccount of her imperfections, and then, to raise her again to a more\nperfect specimen of spiritual life; I will show the characters of these\nspiritual chemists; I will show you the wonderful works of their\nspiritual chemistry, and the wonderful spiritual works of their\nscriptural hands; and then, I will leave you, and others to judge,\nwhether these first reformers, and these new soul menders, _did, or did\nnot_, really imitate the strange, and presumptuous conduct of this\nSpanish chemist.\n\nWhen God first created man, He imprinted on his heart the light of\nreason, which (whether aided by revelation or not, it is not necessary\nhere to enquire) taught him his duty to his God, to his neighbour, and to\nhimself. This light was also imprinted on the hearts of his descendants;\nbut as man fell from God by sin, the light of this natural law was\ngreatly impaired, both in the hearts of our _first_ parents, and of all\n_their_ descendants. The light of this natural law, though much impaired\nby Adam's fall, is, and ever has been, imprinted on the hearts of all,\nand is, and ever has been, the foundation of all moral rectitude. The\nimperfection of this natural law was, before our Saviour came, supplied\nby the aid of revelation, which Almighty God communicated to mankind, at\nvarious times, through His chosen servants. But at _last_, the Almighty\nwas pleased to send His only Son from heaven to earth, to supply the\ndeficiency of this natural law, and to teach mankind, in the most perfect\nmanner, their duty to God, to their neighbour, and to themselves. Hence\nour Saviour beautifully says, \"He came _not_ to destroy the law, but to\nfulfil it,\" that is, He came to supply the imperfections of the natural\nlaw, caused by Adam's fall, and to teach us, in the most perfect manner,\nour duty to our God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves. Hence, for this\npurpose He became man, and united our humanity to His divinity. In this\nGod-man, were concentrated all the treasures of divine wisdom and\nknowledge; and to this God-man, were given all power in heaven, and on\nearth. It is plain, therefore, as our Saviour beautifully says, He came\nto be the way, the truth, and the life to all mankind; that is, He came\nto be the way, by showing us the true way of heaven, which had been\ndarkened, and obscured by the sin of our first parents; He came to be the\ntruth, by revealing to us those supernatural truths, which the natural\nlaw did not reveal, and by revealing to us more clearly those truths,\nwhich the natural law revealed only obscurely; and lastly, He came to be\nour life, by communicating to mankind His graces, by which they were\nenabled to _practise_ the truths, which this divine law _taught_, and\nthus, by the _knowledge_, and _faithful practice_ of this divine law, to\narrive at last at the kingdom of heaven. Hence, fully sensible of this\ntruth, the Apostles are continually in the Scriptures reminding us, on\n_the one hand_, of man's fall, and the sad consequences of that fall; and\n_on the other hand_, of our liberation from sin, and of the abundant\nblessings we have received, by redemption through Jesus Christ.\n\nNow, that mankind _in every age_, might be partakers of these abundant,\nand spiritual blessings, Jesus Christ was pleased to found a Church, and\nto invest this Church with the same spiritual powers, which He had\nreceived from His heavenly Father. This Church, _through Jesus Christ_,\nwas to be the _infallible_ source of all spiritual knowledge, and of all\nspiritual grace; in short, it was to be the _visible_, the _infallible_,\nand _the incorruptible_ Church of all ages, with the world for its\nboundaries, and time for its duration.\n\nI will now, give you a short description of this Church of Christ;\nattend, and I will tell you, in as few words as I can, what this Church\nalways _was_, and really _is_. Catholicity, or Christ's Church, began\nwith our Saviour, received her mission, her powers, and her doctrine,\nfrom Jesus Christ. She has been distinguished in every age, for the unity\nof her faith, and the sanctity of her doctrine, for the universality of\nher extent, and the apostolicity of her origin. No _earthly_\nconsideration, could ever induce her, to swerve _one iota_ from the\nsacred deposit, and unity of faith, delivered to her by Jesus Christ.\nHence, whenever she found any in her communion, either layman, priest, or\nbishop, or _even a whole nation_, wishing to _change_, or _add to_, or\ndiminish _one tittle_ of the _faith_, delivered by her heavenly founder,\nshe _at first_, like a tender mother, expostulated with them, appealed to\nthe grounds and truth of her faith, and traced it to the mouth, either of\nour Saviour or His Apostles; but if they disregarded her tender\nexpostulations, she then, as St. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian, cut\nthem off from her communion, and showed them, when _her faith_ was at\nstake, she feared neither the _frowns_ of individuals, nor the _strength_\nof nations. Every article of her faith is so holy in itself, and so\nconducive to true holiness, that she challenges her greatest adversaries,\nto show the _smallest stain_ in any part of what she _really_ teaches,\nand the most convincing proof of their being _unable_ to do so, is, that\nnot daring to attack her _true_ doctrine, they, by calumny and\nmisrepresentation, lay things to her charge which she even _detests_ and\n_condemns_.[J] And then, after combating a _phantom_ of their _own_\ncreation, exult in an easy and decisive victory. From the dawn of\nChristianity to the present day, there has not been a nation converted to\nChristianity, but what was converted by her zealous exertions, nor is\nthere a religion under the sun except hers, that can prove that any of\nher members, were ever honoured on account of their virtues, and\nsanctity, with the name of saint. She can look back through eighteen\ncenturies, and shew that the unity and sanctity of her doctrine, are the\n_very same_ in the _nineteenth_ century, as they were in the _first_\ncentury. She can trace a long succession of popes, even to the first\npope, who was St. Peter. She can present you a long catalogue of learned\nand polite nations, of scholars, philosophers, and divines, of generals,\nstatesmen, and princes, of saints, martyrs, and confessors, who looked\nupon her faith as their best inheritance, a treasure which they held more\ndear than life itself. In short, she can prove, that she is _now_ that\nChurch, which _our Saviour first_ founded on a rock, against which, He\npromised, that the gates of hell should never prevail, and that He, and\nHis Holy Spirit, should remain with it, teaching it all truth, _until the\nend of the world_. Hence, she has passed through the stormy trials of\n_eighteen_ centuries, which would have long since shivered any _human_\ninstitution into atoms, and now stands forth, ever fresh and vigorous, in\nall her pristine strength, but silvered with the venerable hoar of ages.\n\nThis is a short description of the visible, infallible, and incorruptible\nCatholic Church of Christ; I will now show you how this Church was\nformed, and how it was to be perpetuated, _from age to age_, with the\nworld for its boundaries, and time for its duration. The Prophet Daniel\nforesaw this Church, when he said (Dan. c. ii.), \"The God of heaven\nshould set up a kingdom, which should _never_ be destroyed.\" And our\nSaviour (Matt. xvi.) informs us, that He is the maker and builder of this\nChurch. Hence He assures us, that as He Himself was sent by His Heavenly\nFather to preach the Gospel (Luke iv. 18.), so He, also, sent His\nApostles: as My Father hath sent Me, I also send you. (John xx. 21.) For\nthis purpose He revealed to His Apostles _all_ the divine truths which\n_He_ had received. \"All things,\" says He, \"whatsoever I have heard of My\nFather, I have made known to you.\" (John xv. 15.) He then gave them a\ncommission, to teach _all_ these truths to _all_ nations. \"All power,\"\nsays He, \"is given to me in heaven and on earth: go ye, therefore, and\nteach all nations, teaching them to observe _all_ things whatsoever _I_\nhave commanded you; and behold I am with you _all days, even to the end\nof the world_.\" (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) But when our Saviour gave these\ncommands to His Apostles, He at the same time, imposed upon mankind a\nstrict obligation, _to hear_ and _learn_ His gospel from the Apostles.\nHence He says to His Apostles, \"He that heareth _you_, heareth _Me_, and\nhe that despiseth _you_, despiseth _Me_, and he that despiseth _Me_,\ndespiseth _Him_ that sent me.\" (Luke x. 16.) But whilst our Saviour,\nimposes upon mankind the necessity of _hearing_ His Apostles, he pledged\nHis _infallible_ word, that they should _never_ lead _the people_ astray,\nor teach any false doctrine. For this reason, He promises that He will\nsend down His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, to teach them all truth,\nthat He and His Holy Spirit will remain with them _for ever_, teaching\nthem all truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against\nthem. (John xv. Matt. xvi.)\n\nThat this _absolute_, and _infallible_ authority of preaching and\nteaching, was not to be limited merely to the _persons_ of the Apostles,\nnor merely to the _period_ of their ministry, but was also to extend to\n_their_ successors in office, and _to all future ages_, I will now prove.\nOur Saviour tells His Apostles, that they are to go, and teach _all\nnations_, and that He will be with them, _even until the end of the\nworld_; and that the Spirit of truth, shall remain with them _for ever_.\nNow, as the Apostles, _did not_ teach _all nations_, in their _own_\npersons, and were not to continue on earth, until _the end of the world_,\nit was manifest, that the commission was not to be confined to _their\npersons_, but was to be given to _their office_, that is, to them and\ntheir successors _in office_, who shall continue _until the end of the\nworld_, to _complete_ the great work of teaching all nations, which the\nApostles _first began_. That this was _actually_ the intention of _our\ndivine Saviour_, we learn in positive, and distinct terms, from these\nwords of St. Paul: \"And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and\nother some pastors, and doctors for the perfecting of the saints, for the\nwork of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.\" \"That\nhenceforth we may be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried\nabout with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning\ncraftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.\" (iv. 11, 14.) _Such\nis_, most Reverend Gentlemen, and _such always was, the visible, the\ninfallible, and incorruptible_ Church of Christ, which was to be\nperpetuated _from age to age_, with time for its duration, and the world\nfor its boundaries.\n\nOh, but you will reply, this Church once fell into error, at least so say\nthe first Reformers. If, most Reverend Gentlemen, I were to assert that\n_you_ all once committed _murder_, you would very sharply ask, _when_,\n_where_, and _how_? And if I could not prove _when_, _where_, and _how_,\nI think you would deem me (and justly too) a very near relation to the\nfather of lies. Now, your first Reformers _said_, indeed, that the\nCatholic Church once fell, but _most unfortunately_, they _forgot_ to\nprove _when_, _where_, and _how_. As, therefore, these first Reformers,\nforgot to prove these _most essential_ circumstances, you must excuse _us\nCatholics_, if we prefer _God's infallible_ word, to the _mere ipse\ndixit_ of these _first celestial_ lights of the Reformation. You know God\nsays, heaven and earth, _shall_ pass away, but His word _shall not_ pass\naway.\n\nBut you will, perhaps, answer, really they must have been _strange_\nbeings to have _asserted_, that _God's infallible_ Church had fallen, and\n_not_ to have been able, or at least to have _forgotten, to prove_ such a\nbold assertion. Do you know, I was just thinking the same; and,\ntherefore, I beg to introduce a few of these beings to your notice: and I\nknow _none_, that has a greater claim to our first notice, than Martin\nLuther, _both_ for the _originality_ of his spiritual doctrines, and for\nthe _sublimity_ of the _celestial_ revelations, with which he was\nhonoured. And _mind_, had not Luther and his disciples, left the most\n_incontestible_ testimony of what I am about to advance, it would really\nhave outraged and defied _all credibility_.\n\nWell, then, know, and _never forget_, that Martin Luther, the first\nluminary of the Reformation, had a conference _with the devil_, in which\nMartin assures us, that he was convinced by the _devil's powerful_\nargumentation, that the Popish Mass was a heap of idolatry. The following\nare the words of this angel of _light_ on this subject: \"Being awakened\nat midnight, the devil began to dispute with me, according to his custom.\n\"Listen to me, Master Doctor,\" said he: \"do you consider that, for\nfifteen years, you have said mass almost every day? What, if all this\nwhile, you have been guilty of idolatry, and, instead of adoring the body\nand blood of Christ, have adored only bread and wine?\" I answered him,\nthat I was a priest lawfully ordained by the bishop; and that having,\nfrom a principle of obedience, discharged my ministry with a sincere\nintention of consecrating, I saw no reason to doubt the validity of the\nconsecration. \"True,\" replied Satan; \"but in the Churches of Turks and\nHeathens, is not everything done in an orderly manner, and in the spirit\nof obedience? Does that authorize their worship as orthodox, and\nperfectly correct? What, if your ordination were null, and your\nconsecration as vain and useless as that of Turkish priests, in the\nexercise of their ministry, or of the false prophets under Jeroboam?\"\nHere (adds Luther) I was seized with a violent sweat, and my heart began\nto beat in a strange manner. The devil is very artful in adjusting his\nreasoning, and he also pushes his arguments with great force; he has a\nvoice, strong and rough, and is so pressing in his objections, one after\nanother, as scarcely to allow you time to breathe. Hence, I can conceive,\nhow it has repeatedly happened, that persons have, in the morning, been\nfound dead in their beds. In the first place, he may suffocate them; he\nmay also, by his method of disputing, cause such a trouble in the soul as\nto render her unable to make any further resistance, and thus she may be\ncompelled instantly to leave the body; which has nearly been my own case,\nmore than once.\"\n\nAfter this preface, Luther mentions five reasons which the devil alleged\nagainst the sacrifice of the mass; reasons extremely frivolous in\nthemselves, but which Luther considered of sufficient weight to justify\nhis yielding to them, saying to those who might blame his conduct, that\n\"if _they_ had heard the devil reasoning in the same forcible manner as\n_he_ had done, they would take care not to appeal from his arguments to\nthe practice of the Church, and the usages of antiquity, which would\nnever satisfy them.\" This conference may be seen in three different\neditions of Luther's works, printed by the care of his disciples, viz.,\n(Wittemberg, T. 7, p. 479. Jenae, Ed. Germ. per Thomas, p. 82. Attenberg,\nT. 6. p. 86.)\n\nReally, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is a very strange history.\n_Certain_, however, _it is_, that _Luther_ omits _nothing_ to persuade us\nof its truth: for he mentions the very words which the devil used, the\ntone of his voice, the nature of his arguments, the impression which the\nconference made on his body and soul, which sometimes follow from\ndebating with this king of the lower regions.\n\nAfter the death of Luther, his disciples, and especially Melancton, took\ncare to insert the conference in the collection of Luther's works,\nprinted in Latin at Wittemberg, and the writers of the Luthern and\nCalvinistic party agree, that it was _certainly the production of\nLuther_.[K] (Hospinian, par. 2. Hist. Sacramentariae, p. 26, et. p. 131.)\n\nNow Luther either _had_ or _had not_ this conference with the master of\nlies. If he _really had_, Luther ought to have known, that _such_ a\nmaster was not very likely, to teach him anything _very good_, and that\nhe was not a very _fit_ person, to convince him of the idolatry of the\nmass. For if the mass, had _really_ been idolatry, I think the devil,\nwould _rather_ have encouraged, _than_ tried to overturn it. But if\nLuther _had not_ this conference, then the ambition of Luther, for having\nwished to appear connected with so bad a master, indicates so strange\nand exotic a genius, so depraved and bad a taste, that it reflects\n_almost_ as much dishonour on Luther, as if this conference had really\ntaken place.\n\nYou will perhaps object \"that Luther is nothing to us.\" Most Reverend\nGentlemen, I have not quoted him to insult you, or to throw any\ndisrespect on you; for _you_ are certainly not to be _answerable_ for\nLuther's _deeds_. But I have quoted him to let you see, what kind of a\ngenius, this father of the Reformation was, and I must now candidly ask,\nif you think he was _a fit_ person, to reform Christ's Church. Had he\nindeed begun, by endeavouring to _reform_ the devil himself, we might\nhave pardoned his religious enthusiasm; but for him to tell us, that the\n_infallible_ Church of Christ, had fallen into error, and that he had\ncome to reform it, under the instructions, and guidance of the master of\nlies, is _really_ most outrageous, and cannot be equalled by any thing,\nthat I have either heard, or read on this side the grave. That the human\nmind, should be capable of falling into such dreadful delusion, would\nappear almost incredible, had not the Holy Ghost assured us, that God\nabandons to a reprobate sense, those who wish to change _truth_ into\n_falsehood_. (Romans i. 25-26.)\n\nZuinglius, another bright son of the Reformation, professes to have\nlearnt his main argument against the Real Presence from a spirit, which\nappeared to him in the night, but whether it was a _black_, or _white_\nspirit he does not remember. However, he made great account, of this\nnightly instruction of his _unknown_ friend; read the place of Exodus,\nwhich had been pointed out to him by his _unknown_ friend, and afterwards\npreached before the whole congregation, on the subject of this\n_wonderful_ discovery. (Hosp. ii. p. 25-26.) Luther was positive and\nsure, that the devil, whom Oecolampadius, (another reformer,) employed,\nstrangled him during the night in his bed. \"This is the excellent\nmaster,\" continues Luther, \"who taught Oecolampadius that there are\ncontradictions in the Scripture. See,\" says Luther, \"to what satan brings\nlearned men.\" (De Miss. Priv. Luth.)\n\nSuch were the nocturnal revelations, with which some of the first\nreformers were honoured, and I think now, you will not be surprised at\nthe following character, which is given _them_, and the _other_\nreformers, _even_ by _Protestant_ testimony. Zanchius, the celebrated\nProtestant professor, thus complains of the conduct of his _reforming\nProtestant_ colleagues: \"I am indignant, when I consider the manner, in\nwhich most of us defend our cause. The _true_ state of the question we\noften, on _set_ purpose, involve in _darkness_, that it may not be\n_understood_; we have the impudence, to _deny_ things the _most evident_:\nwe _assert_ what is _visibly_ false: the most _impious_ doctrines, we\n_force_ on the people as the _first_ principles of _faith_, and\n_orthodox_ (true) opinions, we condemn as _heretical_: we _torture_ the\nScriptures, until they agree with our _own_ fancies, and boast of being\nthe _disciples_ of the _fathers_, while we refuse _to follow their_\ndoctrines: _to deceive_, _to calumniate_, _to abuse_, is our _familiar_\npractice: nor do we care for anything, _provided_ we can defend our\ncause, _good_ or _bad_, _right_ or _wrong_. Oh what times! what manners!\n(Zanchius ad Stormium, tome viii. col. 828.)\n\n\"But _forgery_--I blush for the _honour_ of Protestantism while I write\nit--seems to have been _peculiar_ to the _reformed_ * * * and I look _in\nvain_, _for one_ of these accursed outrages of imposition, among _the\ndisciples_ of Popery.\" \"But _forgery_, appears to have been the\n_peculiar_ disease of _Protestantism_.\"--(_Vindication of Mary, Queen of\nScots_, vol. iii. p. 2 and 53. _By the Rev. John Whitaker, B.D., Rector\nof Ruan Langhorne, Cornwall._)\n\nYou have now seen, who was the instructor of _some_ of the first\nReformers, and the two above passages (_mind, from Protestants_,) must\nconvince you, that _they_ and _their_ reforming Protestant colleagues,\nappear to have been apt scholars of this master of lies. Well, I have\nshown you now, the character of the spiritual chemists of the\nReformation. I will now show you, some of the wonderful _spiritual_\nworks, of some of their _supernatural_, and chemical hands.\n\nAmong these, I must rank as _first_ and foremost, the wonderful spiritual\ndeeds, of your Scriptural Church as by Law established. Most Reverend\nGentlemen, The Thirty-nine Articles, are the fundamental Articles of your\nProtestant Creed. Now, in the Thirty-fifth of those Articles, I find,\nthat your Scriptural Church professes to believe, in the Protestant\nhomilies there named. Among which I find the second is, \"against peril of\nidolatry.\" Now, the following, are the words of your Protestant homily\nagainst idolatry. Its words are these: \"The preaching of God's word, most\nsincere in the beginning, by process of time became less and less pure,\nand afterwards corrupt, and last of all, altogether laid down and left\noff, &c. Not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise; not\nthe people only, but the bishops; not the sheep, but also the shepherds\nthemselves, being blinded by the bewitchery of images, as blind guides of\nthe blind, fell both into the _pit of damnable idolatry_; in which all\nthe world, as it were drowned, continued unto our age for the space of\neight hundred years; unspoken against in a manner, so that laity and\nclergy, learned and unlearned, of all ages and sexes and degrees, of men\nand women and children of whole Christendom, (an horrible thing to\nthink,) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other\nvices most detested by God, and damnable to men, and that for the space\nof eight hundred years together. And to this end has come that beginning\nof setting up of images in churches, then judged harmless, in experience\nproved not only harmful, but exitious and pestilential, and to the\n_destruction of all good religion universally_.\" Thus far, your\nProtestant homily.\n\nReally, most Reverend Gentlemen, if in my comments on the above passage,\nI have often to use the word _damnable_, you must really _pardon_ me, for\nyou see, I have just been taught this _pretty_ word, by your Scriptural\nChurch, and you know, she is master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend\nGentlemen, where was your Protestant Scriptural Church, during this\n_eight_ hundred years of damnable idolatry? If it was a member of _no_\nChurch, then, it was not a member, or part of _Christ's_ Church. But if\nit was a member, or part of any _one_ Church in _all_ Christendom, then,\nit was utterly drowned in abominable, and damnable idolatry. I wonder how\nyour Scriptural Church, can extricate herself out of this spiritual\nlabyrinth.\n\nWell, then, here we have, _according_ to _your_ Scriptural Church, a\nuniversal apostacy. The true Church decayed, the whole of Christendom\ndrowned in damnable idolatry, and all good religion destroyed\n_universally_, and _that_, for eight hundred years; and we have also\n_your_ Scriptural Church either not existing, or buried in this universal\nspiritual destruction. Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not\nonly demolished the _whole_ spiritual fabric of Christendom, but also\nperished _herself_ under the ruins of this universal spiritual\ndestruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst with _one_ hand,\nshe was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the Catholic\nChurch, into the vortex of this universal spiritual destruction, she,\nwith _the other_ hand, charitably saves _us_ Catholics (as Moses was\nsaved from the waters) from this deluge of universal spiritual idolatry;\nand I will now show you how; for your Scriptural Church, in her sixth\narticle of the Thirty-nine Articles, teaches that, \"Holy Scripture\ncontaineth all things necessary to salvation.\" Now, this very Scripture,\n(the book of salvation,) declares (as I have already shown in my above\ndescription of the Catholic Church,) that, the Catholic Church should\n_never_ err, and of course, could _never_ fall into idolatry. And,\ntherefore, in obedience to your Scriptural Church, and to the Scripture\nitself, we believe that the Catholic Church, _never_ has fallen, and\n_never will_ fall into idolatry. For the Scripture says, \"Heaven and\nearth _shall_ pass away, but God's word, _shall not_ pass away.\" Really,\nyour Scriptural Church, is very kind to us in this respect, and I almost\nbegin to think, she must be a worthy descendant of Pharo's daughter, who\nsaved Moses from the waters of the Nile.\n\nWell, Most Reverend Gentlemen, you see your scriptural Church, has now\nhurled the whole of Christendom, into the vortex of universal,\nabominable, and damnable idolatry, and either involved herself, in this\nsweeping deluge of abominations, or committed suicidical destruction on\nherself; but, _strange_ to say, she has _charitably_ saved us benighted\nPapists, from these abominable, and universal waters of idolatry, as\nPharo's daughter, kindly saved Moses from the waters of the Nile. Now,\n_how_ your scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to\ngather together again, and unite all the various parts of this\nuniversal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at a loss\nto determine. If _she really can_ collect, unite, and form these various\nspiritual parts, into a _more_ perfect, and durable edifice, than _God\nHimself_ had made it, I shall _then_ begin to think, that she is invested\nwith powers, which _even God Himself_ does not possess. But by _what_\nspiritual art of chemistry, is she to perform this wonderful, and\n_superhuman_ operation? If she has recourse to _the Scriptures_, she will\n_there_ learn, that God had built this spiritual edifice on an\n_imperishable_, infallible, and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for\nher sake, God will not _contradict_ Himself; and if she has recourse to\nher thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor\nscriptural Church! thou hast often made _sad_ work with _other_ Churches;\nbut _at last_, alas! thou art in _sad_ straits thyself. O! how thou\nremindest me of the man, who\n\n    \"Halting on crutches of unequal size,--\n    One leg by truth supported, one by lies,\n    Thus saddled to the goal, with awkward pace,\n    Secure of nothing but to lose the race.\"\n\nWell, but you will say, this immense spiritual edifice _must_ for the\nsake of the _salvation_ of mankind, be _re_-built. Should I offer _my\nofficious_ services, to assist in this pious work of reconstruction, your\nscriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyed _more_ than I built.\nWell, she could not, even then, justly complain of this; for _she_ has\n_just_ cut into pieces, demolished, and annihilated the _whole_ of\nChristendom, with her destructive weapons of universal, abominable, and\ndamnable idolatry.\n\nIn all _material_ edifices, it is considered of the greatest importance\nthat the _foundation_ should be _firm_, _safe_, and substantial. Of\ncourse, we have reason to expect _these_ requisites in the foundation of\nall _spiritual_ edifices; and of course, we may _naturally_ expect them,\nin the new erection of God's work which your Church has just destroyed,\nbut which she is _now_ going to re-construct into a _more_ perfect and\ndurable form than _God_ had made it. Now, upon _what_ foundation will\nyour Church _re_construct this demolished spiritual edifice? In her\ntwenty-first article of her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has\nsworn to these articles as God's truth,) I find the following words:\n\"General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment,\nand will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as\nthey be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit,\nand word of God,) they _may err_, and _sometimes have erred, even in\nthings pertaining unto God_.\"\n\nNow, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, of _what_ is your new\nspiritual Church to be built? Surely not of brick and mortar! but of\ncourse, it is to be erected, on the testimony of man, or of some body of\nmen. But your article says, men may err, and _have_ erred, _even in\nthings pertaining to God_. Therefore, your council, or councils, of your\nnew Church _may err_, and therefore, how will you build upon these\n_fallible_ men an _infallible_ foundation?\n\nBut you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they may err\n_unless_ governed by the _Spirit_, and word of God. Well, Most Reverend\nGentlemen, is it likely God will give _them_ his Spirit, and unerring\nword to _re_construct a new Church, when they have just destroyed the\ninfallible, and beautiful work of _God's own hands_? Is it in the nature\nof things, that _God_ should _contradict_ Himself, to second the BABEL\nideas, of your scriptural Church, yet to be formed?\n\nReally, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim, _how_ you are _garbling_\nthat twenty-first article! Why have you _slyly_ omitted to quote the\n_last_ part of that article?--Well, as you have called, for the _last_\npart of this article, I will now quote it; and as your Church (_first_,\nindeed, unfortunately destroying herself) has just so charitably saved\nus, benighted papists, from the waters of idolatry, I do sincerely hope\nthis _last_ part of your article, may enable you, to _re_build a godly\nand spiritual edifice. Well, then, now for the _last_ part of this\ntwenty-first article, which you say, I have _slyly omitted_. It runs thus\nverbatim: \"Wherefore, things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation,\nhave neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they\nbe taken out of Holy Scripture.\" Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, as you\nhave just asked _me_ a question, allow _me_ to ask _you another_. If any\nof you, were wishful to purchase an estate, would you not _first_, have\nthe title deeds of that estate, _carefully_ examined by some eminent and\nrespectable lawyers, _to be sure_ that the title deeds, were perfectly\ngood, and satisfactory, _before_ you advanced the money? Now we have just\nlearnt, from the _last_ part of your twenty-first article, that the\nScriptures, properly speaking, are the deeds of a _Christian_, by which\nhe is to obtain a _good_ title to salvation. Of course, therefore, we may\n_naturally_ suppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down to her\nfollowers the Scriptures, in the _most perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.\n\nWell, we will now see whether she _has_ done _this_, and _then_ we shall\nbe able to determine, if she can _re_build her godly, and spiritual\nedifice on so heavenly a foundation. We will now consider how she got the\nsacred Scriptures, after her shipwreck amid the perils of idolatry, and\nwhether, _after_ she got them, she handed them down to her followers in\nthe perfect and unmutilated state, in which she _first_ received them\nfrom the _Catholic Church_. Luther, the father of the Reformation, even\nafter he had left the Catholic Church, candidly says, in his Commentary\non the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel: \"We are obliged to yield many\nthings to the Papists, that with them is the word of God, which _we_\nreceived from _them_, otherwise we should have known _nothing at all\nabout it_.\" And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the\nfollowing confession: \"Under Papacy are many good things, yea,\n_everything_ that is _good_ in _Christianity_. I say moreover,\" continues\nhe, \"under Papacy is _true_ Christianity, even the _very kernel_ of\nChristianity.\" From these two passages of Luther, it is evident, that\nyour scriptural Church, _first_ received the Scriptures from the _hand_\nof the _Catholic_ Church, and that she received them, in a _perfect_ and\n_unmutilated_ state; otherwise, how could Luther's words be true, (and\n_mind_, he uttered these words _after_ he had left the Catholic Church)\nwhen he assures us, that under Papacy is \"true Christianity, yea,\neverything that is good in Christianity, nay, the _very kernel_ of\nChristianity.\"\n\nNow let us see _how_ your scriptural Church, corrupted and mutilated the\nsacred volumes which she had received from the Catholic Church in a\n_perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.\n\nLuther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant\ntranslation of the Scriptures, which was _immediately_ condemned by\nOsiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this translation of Luther,\nZuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) \"Luther was a foul corrupter, and\nhorrible falsifier of God's word. One, who followed the Marcionites and\nArians, that razed out such places of Holy Writ, as were against him.\nThou dost,\" says he to Luther, \"corrupt the word of God. Thou art seen to\nbe a manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy\nScriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed\nthee!\" But Luther not only falsified, but he also added, to the texts of\nthe Scripture. \"I know well,\" says Luther, \"that this word, alone, (which\nhe added to St. Paul's words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St.\nPaul, but should a Papist, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without\nhesitation, that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a papist,\nand an ass, are synonymous.\" (Tom. 5, Jena Edit. p. 141, 144.)\n\nBut Luther, soon had an opportunity of retaliating, on his disciple\nZuinglius. When Proscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of Zurich, sent him a\ncopy of the Zuinglian translation, Luther rejected it, and sent it back\nto him, calling at the same time the Zuinglian divines, in matters of\ndivinity, \"fools, asses, anti-christs, deceivers, and of an ass-like\nunderstanding.\" (See Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)\n\nOf the translation set forth by Oecolampadius, Beza says, that it \"is\nin many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy\nGhost.\" And he also condemns that of Castalio, as being sacrilegious,\nwicked, and heathenish. (In Respons. ad Defens. and Respons. Castal.)\n\nWe should naturally expect that Beza, after thus reproving the\ntranslations of Oecolampadius and of Castalio, would _himself_ have\nproduced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus observes of his\ntranslation, that \"he (Beza) actually changes the text, of which Molineus\ngives several instances.\" (In sua Translat. Nov. Testi. part 20.)\n\nCastalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the Scriptures,\nand yet, he adds, \"I will not note all his (Beza's) corruptions, for\nthat would require too large a volume.\" (In Defens. Transl.)\n\nOf Calvin's translation the learned Molinaeus thus speaks: \"Calvin, in his\nharmony, makes the text of the Gospel to leap up and down. He uses\nviolence to the letter of the Gospel; and besides this, adds to the\ntext.\" (In sua Translat. Nov. Test. part 12.)\n\nHere, then, you have Zuinglius and others against Luther's translation,\nand Luther against Zuinglius's translation, Beza against Oecolampadius\nand Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and\nMolinaeus against Calvin's translation. Now, which of all these false\ntranslations was your scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of\nfaith and for that of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was\nto adopt her _own_ English translations.\n\nWell, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better\nthan _any_ of the above translations, Carlile, in his treatise on\nChrist's descent into hell, says of the English translators, that they\nhave \"depraved the sense, obscured the sense, obscured the truth, and\ndeceived the ignorant; that in _many_ places, they do detort the\nscriptures from the _right_ sense, and that they show themselves to love\ndarkness more than light, falsehood more than truth.\" And in an\nabridgment which the ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to\nKing James, they denominated the English translation, \"A translation that\ntaketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime to\nthe changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a\ntranslation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places,\nthe meaning of the Holy Ghost.\" Burges, in his Apology, sec. 6, exclaims,\n\"How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath so many\nomissions, many additions, which sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts\nthe sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?\" And Broughton,\nin his letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for\nrequiring a new translation without delay, that \"That which is now in\nEngland is full of errors.\" And, in his Advertisement of Corruptions, he\ntells the bishops, \"That their public translations of Scriptures into\nEnglish is such, as that it perverts the texts of the Old Testament, in\neight hundred and forty-eight places; and that it causes millions of\nmillions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames.\"\n\nBut some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant\ntranslations of _earlier_ times; but we have got _better_ translations\nnow. Well, then we must now examine the truth of your assertion. In\nNovember, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society passed the following\ncondemnatory resolution of the Irish translators: \"Resolved, that, after\na full enquiry, the members of this society feel satisfied, that material\nand very numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament,\nedited by the British and Foreign Bible Society.\" According to Mr. Platt,\nthirty-five variations were discovered in the first ten pages, of which\nseven were considered to be material. \"This proportion in a Testament of\nfour hundred pages,\" says the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, \"gives fourteen\nhundred variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a\nsingle volume.\" We find in the Monthly London Review, page 220, \"That in\nApril, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the subject, to the\nvice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge and of Oxford, and the\nother delegates of the Clarendon press.\" It was signed by the following\ngentlemen:\n\n    T. Bennet, D.D.\n    T. Blackburn.\n    George Collinson.\n    F. A. Cox, L.L.D.\n    Thomas Curtis.\n    T. Fletcher, D.D.\n    E. Henderson.\n    J. P. Smith, D.D.\n    T. Townley, D.D.\n    R. Winter, D.D.\n\nThe names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not to\ncommunicate a great degree of importance, to any statement to which they\nare affixed. This memorial states, \"That the modern Bibles, issued from\nthe press of the University of Oxford, abounded with deviations from the\nauthorized version of King James the First. That, though some of these\nerrors were merely typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the\nnumber was of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were\nupwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred; in the\nGospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in about the fourth\npart of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand, nine hundred and\nthirty-one.\"\n\nThe same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking of the\npamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington, on his discoveries\nof the falsification of the Bible, says: \"In this comparatively brief\npamphlet, we find the exposition of one of the most singular deceptions,\nto which the world has yet been exposed. The imposition, is nothing short\nof a downright falsification of the text of Scripture. Need we add a\nsyllable more, to rouse the attention of the thinking community?\" In the\nsame pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: \"About twenty years ago, an intelligent\nreader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible was in a course of\nprinting, took the trouble of drawing up a specification of a number of\ngross errors, which he found in the very copy, _that had been selected by\nthe proper authorities_, as the _standard_ of correctness to which he was\nto adhere. The errors pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to\nno less, than seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the\nvarious chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah.\"\n\nWell, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have stated (and\nwhere is the person who can contradict what I have stated), that the\n_first_ Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and falsified the sacred\nScriptures, that your English Protestant Reformers, did also the same,\nand that even at the present day, your English Protestant translations of\nthat sacred volume, are in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to\nheaven I could stop here!\n\nBut what will the English people say, when they learn, that your\nProtestant scriptural Church, has _not only_ falsified and corrupted the\nScriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon\nof the Scripture many books, which are _as much canonical_ (that is, as\nmuch the inspired word of God) as those, which she still retains in her\npresent Protestant canon. I will now prove this. The Protestant Church,\nreceived at first (as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the\nCatholic Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority\nin this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church be, sure that\nher first Scriptures, were the real word of God? Now, the Catholic Church\nhas ranked, for at least fourteen hundred years, many books as\n_canonical_, which _your_ Protestant Church rejects as _uncanonical_. In\nthe year 397, a Catholic council was held at Carthage, at which the\nlearned and pious St. Augustine assisted. In that council, the canon of\nthe Scripture, was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council,\nmany books were declared to be _canonical_ (that is, the inspired word of\nGod,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, are\n_not canonical_, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word\nof God. But _what_ reason had your scriptural Church, to assume the\naudacious power, to condemn as _uncanonical_, books, which were declared\nby this illustrious, numerous, and learned body of Christians, _to be\ncanonical_, (that is, the inspired word of God?) I ask you, _what_ reason\nhad your scriptural Church for this _audacious_ step? I answer, none. O\nbut I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrong _for\nonce_, old papish botheration. Look at the passage in the sixth of our\narticles, between _our canonical_ and _un_canonical books, and there you\nwill find a good reason for your _popish_ question.\n\nThank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the passage, and give\n_your_ scriptural Church the benefit of it. \"And the other books (as\nHierome saith) the Church doth read, for example of life, and instruction\nof manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.\"\n(Art. 6, Ch. Eng. P. Book.) Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, _truth_ and\n_falsehood_ are in this passage, mixed up together _to a nicety_. In the\nfirst part, your scriptural Church tells the people that she, like Hierom\n(and mind, St. Hierom was a great Catholic Saint), reads her\n_un_canonical books, for example of life and instruction of manners.\nWell, _her object_ for reading these books, as far as it goes, is very\ngood; but then, your scriptural Church _slyly_ adds, \"but yet doth it not\napply them _to establish_ any doctrine:\" an artful inuendo that St.\nHierom did the same. Now St. Hierom wished, indeed, the Catholic Church\nto read these books, for example of life, and instruction of manners; but\nSt. Hierom, at the same time, included in the Catholic canon _all_ the\nbooks, which had been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if\nyour scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation of\nthe _first_ part of this passage, why does she slyly intimate, to follow\nhim in the _second_ part, where she contradicts St. Hierom, by asserting\nthat certain books of the Scripture, are _uncanonical_, which St. Hierom\nbelieved, and taught were _really canonical_? Come, Reverend Gentlemen,\nyour Church _must_ have had some _sly_ reason, for this _contradictory_\nconduct. Now, _do_ tell us _what this_ reason was. Well, if _you_ will\nnot tell, _I_ must.\n\nYou have seen, how the first reformers _falsified_ the Scriptures, to\nmake the sacred text, harmonize with their _reformed_ ideas; but _what\npuzzled_ them _most_ was, they found there were certain books, which they\ncould not _possibly tune_ to _their new_ ideas. They _durst_ not indeed,\n_entirely_ reject these sacred books; for they knew in _what_ veneration,\nthey had been _always_ held by _antiquity_; but on the _other_ hand, they\n_durst_ not admit them as _canonical_; for _then_, the _testimony_ of\n_these_ books, would upset _their new-fangled_ ideas; they thought,\ntherefore, the _most convenient_ method, was to make _flesh_ and _fish_\nof them, and _then_, they could either _admit_, or _contradict_ them,\naccording to their _own spiritual convenience_.\n\nAnd that I am speaking the truth, I will give you _one single_ instance,\nand from this _one_, you will be able to judge of _the rest_, of their\nsly method, of squaring the scripture to their _new_, and _re_forming\nideas. Of all the tenets of the Catholic creed, there is _none_, that has\nbeen _more lustily_ inveighed against, and accordingly, _none_ that sound\n_so awfully_, to an _English Protestant_ ear, as Purgatory, and Prayers\nfor the dead. (_O keep your seats, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I am not\ngoing to put you into Purgatory, although you may imagine it smells very\nstrongly of it on this side the grave._)[L] Well, mind this doctrine of\nPurgatory, and of Prayers for the dead, was the belief of the Jews, and\nof all the first Christians, and continued even to the time of the\nReformation. Now in the book of _Machabees_, this doctrine is so\n_plainly_ laid down, that no man in his senses, can contradict it. Read\nthe following passage, and tell me, if I am not speaking the truth. \"And\nmaking a gathering, he (Judas Machabeus) sent 1200 drachms of silver to\nJerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking\nwell, and religiously, concerning their resurrection. (For if he had not\nhoped that they that were slain, should rise again, it would have seemed\nsuperfluous, and vain to pray for the dead.) And, because, he considered\nthat they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up\nfor them. It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the\ndead, that they may be loosed from sins.\" II. Mac. xii. 43-46.\n\nNow this passage was so _clear_, and _positive_ a proof of purgatory, and\nof prayers for the dead, that the first Reformers found, that they could\nnot get rid of it, _without denying the divine_ authority of the book.\n_Accordingly_, these new soul-menders, told the people that the two Books\nof Machabees, were not included in the Jewish Canon, but _unfortunately_,\nthey _forgot_ to tell the world _the reason_, (viz.,) because the Jewish\nCanon was compiled by Esdras, _long before_ the Books of Machabees were\nwritten. And now, you may understand the _sly_ words of your sixth\narticle, \"but yet it doth not apply them (these books) to _establish any\ndoctrine_,\" viz., to establish the _Catholic_ doctrine, and to _overturn\ntheir new-fangled_ ideas.\n\nNow, Gentlemen, is it not plain that your _Church_, hath _both corrupted_\nthe Scriptures, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many of the\n_inspired_ books of those sacred volumes?\n\nAnd now, allow me to quote the _first_ part of the sixth Article of your\nChurch, and then, tell me _what_ the _people_ are to do, to save their\nsouls, and how your Scriptural Church, _is ever_ to be raised again, to a\nnew spiritual life. \"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to\nsalvation: so that, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be approved\nthereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as\nan Article of the Faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to\nsalvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those\nCanonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was\nnever any doubt in the Church.\"\n\nNow this part of your Article, assures us, in the strongest manner, that\nthe Holy Scriptures, contain all things necessary for salvation, that\nthey are the sure palladium of a Christian, and his title-deeds to\neternal life; and it also says, that in this sacred volume, are to be\nincluded all the books of whose authority, was never any doubt in the\nChurch. Now, it is also plain from what I have advanced, (and find me a\nperson who can overturn by _solid_ argument what I have advanced,) it is\nplain, I repeat it, that your Church has _both_ falsified the text of the\nScripture, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many books, whose\nauthority and divine inspiration, were held by antiquity in the greatest\nveneration. Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, do tell me what the people are\nto do. On the _one_ hand, your Church tells the people, there _is no_\nsalvation _without_ the Scripture: and on the _other_ hand, your Church\nhas falsified the text, and also expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon,\nmany _inspired_ Books of the Scripture. Really, can you obtain the\npossession of property by _corrupt_ and mutilated title-deeds? Certainly\nnot. How, _then_, are your people to obtain eternal life by your _false_,\nand mutilated title-deeds of the Scripture? Really, most Reverend\nGentlemen, if the prejudices of my popish education do not strongly\ndeceive me, your Protestant mutilation of the Scripture, and your Sixth\nArticle, are pregnant with the most _paradoxical_ consequences. O how\njustly may I apply to _your_ Scriptural Church, the observations which a\ndistinguished minister of the Church _of England_, applied to the\noperations of the Bible Society; these are his words: \"Surely, it is\nenough to make a Christian's blood run cold, to think of the sacrilegious\npresumption of a Society, which dares thus to tamper, and trifle with the\nrevelation of the Almighty, and dares publish to the heathen, and attempt\nto pawn upon its credulous supporters, these schoolboy exercises of its\nagents, as the Sacred Word of God! It is the circulation of such\ntranslations as these, that, more than once, at the meetings of this\nSociety, have been blasphemously compared to the miraculous gift of\ntongues. And such a system is supported, and such comparisons applauded\nby many, who, on other occasions, lay claim, and justly, to the\ncharacters of piety and intelligence.\"[M] O how justly might he have\napplied these observations to his own Church.[N]\n\nWe have now seen, most Reverend Gentlemen, the falsification, and\nmutilation of the Sacred Scriptures, by the Protestant Reformers. Your\nSixth Article tells the people, that the Scriptures are the only means of\nsalvation; but of course, she must mean _correct_ copies, and\n_authenticated_ translations of those sacred volumes. Now, what are the\npeople to do for eternal life, placed as they are, on the one hand,\nbetween your falsified, corrupt, and mutilated Scriptures, and on the\nother hand, the absolute necessity (according to your Sixth Article) of\nculling their religion from the Scriptures? But, as there is no hope of\nsalvation, for the people in this awful fix, do you think, you could\nraise a church for the people, instead of these falsified scriptures? But\nthen, it is evident, that you cannot raise that church, on the frail\nfoundation of these falsified, and mutilated scriptures. Really I am\nsorry, that I declined the assistance of the Spanish chemist, as he\nmight, perhaps, have thrown some new light, on this subject by his\nwonderful chemical operations. O! but a very bright idea, has just popped\ninto my mind, that your Protestant prayer-book, was first made 'by the\naid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God.' Surely, we shall now\nsucceed, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the noble object of God's\nhonour. Well, then, we will now see, how this prayer-book, was first made\nby men, 'aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God;' we will\nthen see, how these very men who at first declare, that this prayer-book,\nwhich was made by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God,\nafterwards most solemnly swear, that all these inspirations of the Holy\nGhost were heretical, and contrary to true religion, and then, how they\nbring back this prayer-book, and enact the most severe penalties on all,\nwho will not adopt its use.\n\nIn the reign of Henry the Eighth, the faith of Protestantism, and\ndefection from the Catholic faith, first partially began. In the reign of\nhis son, Edward VI., Protestantism, made a-head, and Catholicism, rapidly\ndeclined. It was in the reign of this youth Edward VI., (only eleven\nyears of age,) that the Protestant prayer-book, was made by Act of\nParliament. In the preamble of this Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) we are\ninformed that Edward (only eleven years of age) appointed the Archbishop\nof Canterbury, and others, who, \"aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the\nhonour of God,\" made this prayer-book. Take notice that this Act (i. &\nii. Edward VI.) declares, that this Protestant prayer-book, was made by\nthese men, \"aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God.\" This Act\nof Parliament, provided also, that if any clergyman, refused to use this\nprayer-book, in the public service, he should, for the first offence,\nforfeit to the King one year's income of his benefice, and be imprisoned\nfor six months; for the second, he should be deprived of the whole of his\nbenefice, and be imprisoned for one year; and for the third offence, he\nshould be imprisoned for his whole life. But this Act, was not confined\nmerely to the clergy, it extended also to the laity. It enacted, that if\nany layman, should by interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open\nwords, declare, or speak anything to the derogation of the said common\nprayer-book, penalty after penalty, was to follow, until he had forfeited\nall his goods, and chattels to the King, and to be imprisoned for life.\nSuch, was the first formation, of your Protestant prayer-book, as the Act\nof Parliament, (i. & ii. Edward VI.) plainly shews.\n\nNow, let us see the result, in the next reign. Edward died seven years\nafterwards, and was succeeded by his sister, Mary, who was a Catholic.\nAlmost, as soon as Mary had ascended the throne, the very men repeal the\nwhole of the famous Act, for making the common prayer-book, and that too,\non the grounds that this prayer-book, was contrary to true religion,\nalthough, in the former reign, they had solemnly declared, they had been\nassisted, \"by the Holy Ghost\" in the making of this prayer-book; they\nalso abolished all the pains, and penalties, which they had enacted, in\nthe former reign, against the clergy, and laity, for not using this\ncommon prayer-book, and this too, on the express ground, that they had\nbeen for years, wandering in error, and schism, although, they had had\nthe barefacedness to assert, in the previous reign, that the Holy Ghost,\nhad assisted them in the formation of this common prayer-book.\n\nWell, Mary died about five years afterwards, and was succeeded by her\nsister Elizabeth, who was at first a Catholic, but shortly turned\nProtestant. Now the second Act of this Queen, (i. Eliz. chap. 2.) brought\nback again, this prayer-book. In Mary's reign these very men, had\nabolished this very prayer-book, as schismatical, they now recall this\ncommon prayer-book, and inflict the most severe penalties, upon all, who\nwill not use it, in the public service. For the first offence, it was now\nenacted, the clergy were to forfeit a year's income, and be imprisoned\nfor a year; for the second offence, they were to forfeit all their\nincomes, and be imprisoned for life, for refusing to use this common\nprayer-book, in the public service. The people also, were compelled on\nSundays, and holydays, to attend the Church, and to use this common\nprayer-book, under various penalties, and in failure of paying these\npenalties, they were to be imprisoned. Bishops, Archdeacons, and other\nOrdinaries, were to have power, to inflict these punishments. Really the\nconduct of these men, is, so inconsistent and monstrous, that if we had\nnot Acts of Parliament for it, I should have been afraid to state it,\nupon any other authority. In the reign of Edward, these very men make the\ncommon prayer-book, and declare it a work of the Holy Ghost, and for the\nhonour of God; then, in about seven years afterwards, in the reign of\nMary, they declare this book to be schismatical, and contrary to true\nreligion, although in the former reign, they had asserted, it was a work\nof the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; and then in about five\nyears afterwards, these very men recant again, recall this prayer-book,\nand inflict the most severe pains, and penalties, both on clergy and\nlaity, who refuse the use of it. Most Reverend Gentlemen, may I ask you,\nwhat kind of a prayer-book, must that be, which was made by these\ninconsistent, and monstrous men? and yet, such is your Protestant\nprayer-book, of the Church of England as by Law established.\n\nBut some of you reverends, will perhaps reply, really, Sir, it is too bad\nof you, thus to lower our Protestant Prayer-book, for we Protestants all\nknow, how many beautiful, and admirable parts there are in that Church\nPrayer-book. Most Reverend Gentlemen, before I answer this objection, we\nmust quietly trace back our steps to the Spanish chemist. Of course, I\nhave forbidden myself the application of his wonderful, chemical\noperations to your Church. But then, you yourselves can apply them, and\njudge whether there really is, any analogy or not, between his chemical\noperations, and the spiritual works of your scriptural Church. Well,\nthen, I have shewn you, what a beautiful Church God and Jesus Christ\nfirst built; and I have shown you the sure, and infallible foundation of\nthat Church, which was to be perpetuated from age to age, with the world\nfor its boundaries, and time for its duration. I have shewn you, how, in\nthe sixteenth century, arose a body of men, the most audacious, and\nstrange spiritual chemists, that the world ever beheld, whether you\nconsider the spiritual instructor of some of them, or whether you\nconsider the strange doctrines they advanced, and the barefaced manner,\nin which they defended, and propagated their new-fangled ideas. I have\nshewn you, how these strange spiritual chemists, wished to demolish God's\ninfallible Church, how they cut it into pieces of universal and damnable\nidolatry, how then, they put these various parts into the sublimatory\nglass of falsification, and mutilation of God's word. You then saw, how\nthese spiritual chemists, and their followers, have been trying in vain,\nfor these three hundred years at least, to collect, and unite, and form\nthese various parts of Christ's Church (which according to their bare\nassertion, had fallen into error), into a more perfect, and durable form,\nthan that which God had first given it. You have seen, how these\nProtestant children of the Reformation, honoured England with a\nProtestant Prayer-book, the formation of which, almost defies all the\npower of credibility; and were there not Acts of Parliament to show\nthis, it would be an insult to any Englishman, to assert such a thing in\nhis presence. Now with all these facts before you, is there not a great\nanalogy, between the outrageous conduct of your Church, and that of the\nSpanish chemist, who destroyed his master, with the design of raising\nhim, to a more perfect and durable state, than that which God had first\ngiven him?\n\nI ask you, most Reverend Gentlemen, with all these awful and\nincontestible facts before you, will your Protestant Church, ever be able\nto raise Christ's Church, to as perfect and as durable a state, as she\n_is now_, and _was then_, when you withdrew from her? Your Protestant\nChurch has been trying her hand, at this work of reformation, for more\nthan three hundred years, and still she is something like the Irishman's\nwife: Pat got married, and in about three months after, went to the\npriest, and said, \"Plaise your reverince, you didn't marry me and my wife\nrightly.\" \"Well,\" asked the clergyman, \"how did I marry you wrongly?\"\n\"Plaise your reverince, didn't you say, I was to take my wife for better,\nand for worse?\" \"Certainly,\" replied the priest. \"Now, plaise your\nreverince, she's all worse, and no better.\" Really, how justly may we\napply this to your Church of England as by law established. In short,\nthis country, the wonder of the world in commerce, in the arts and\nsciences, in the extent of her navy, and the power of her army, this\nwonderful nation, presents, in point of religion, a confused medley of\nevery sort, and of every form of worship, a perfect chaos of doctrines,\nin which every one plunges, and tosses, dogmatizing as fancy or feeling\ndirects. In consequence of this confusion of religious opinions, men know\nnot, to whom to listen, what to believe, or what to do. This confusion of\nreligious opinions, and doctrines, commenced with the Reformation, and\nhas continued, and daily increased ever since. O how justly did a chief\nof the savages, address, near Boston, a missionary, who had gone with his\nBible, to convert the pagans of that country. \"How,\" asked this chief,\n\"can _your_ religion be the _true_ one, since you _white_ men do not\n_all_ profess the _same_? Agree among _yourselves_ in this point, and\n_then_ we will attend to you.\" (Phil. Gaz. Nov. 1817.)\n\nBut some of you reverends, will ask again: Really, sir, do you pretend to\nassert, that our Common Prayer-book, and that our Protestant Church, do\nnot contain _any_ spiritual treasures? I answer, that in all counterfeit\ncoin, which is well executed, the gold is often laid on the base metal\nrather thickly, and with great ingenuity. Now, this is the case with your\ncounterfeit prayer-book, and with your counterfeit religion. Whoever will\ntake the pains to examine carefully, the strange mixture of good, and of\nevil, which is to be found in your Protestant Prayer-book, and in your\nProtestant religion, will, at first, stand astonished, but his\nastonishment will soon cease, when he finds that the little good which is\nin them, flows from the Church of Jesus Christ, which you formerly left,\nand that the evils with which they abound, flow from the inventions and\nthe ingenuity of man.\n\nAllow me to give you a few instances of this. In the Apostles' creed (and\nin your Thirty-nine Articles you admit this creed as the word of God),\nyou profess to believe, in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, this is the\nreal word of God, which your Church admits; but then, you also solemnly\ndeclare, that you believe in your hearts, and from your soul, that the\ndoctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is idolatrous. Now this is the mere\nhuman invention of your Protestant Church. Now when these two doctrines,\nthe one from God, and the other from man, are brought in contact, let us\nsee what sad consequences they make with you, and your scriptural Church.\nYou profess to believe, in the Catholic Church; but Catholic, means\nuniversal, and as the Roman Catholics form the greatest body of\nChristians, their Church only, can be the Catholic, or universal Church;\nfor Catholic, and universal, mean the _same_ thing. But mind, you destroy\nthis Catholic or universal Church. How? Why you swear, that her doctrine\nis idolatrous. How, then, can she be holy? Thus, you see, by joining in\nreligion the word of God, with the inventions of man, you destroy (though\nperhaps without intending it) the holy Catholic Church, in which you\nprofess to believe.\n\nI will now give you another instance. At the end of the Communion Service\nof your Common Prayer-book, I find these words: \"It is hereby declared,\nthat thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto\nthe sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or to any corporal\npresence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread\nand wine, remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore,\nmay not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful\nChristians.\" Of course, the plain meaning of these words is, that Jesus\nChrist is not present in the Lord's Supper, and therefore, it would be a\ngreat crime to there adore him. But, what does your Church Catechism\n(which is in your prayer-book) teach children on this subject? Why, it\nasks them, \"What is the inward part, or the thing signified?\" Your Church\nCatechism answers: \"The Body and Blood of Christ, which are _verily_ and\n_indeed taken_, and _received_ by the faithful, in the _Lord's Supper_.\"\nNow this declares, that our Saviour, is _really_ present in the _Lord's\nSupper_, for how can you _really_, and indeed _take_ Him, and _receive_\nHim, if He is not _really_ there? Thus, in _one_ part of your\nprayer-book, you solemnly declare, that our Saviour is _not_ present, in\nthe _Lord's Supper_, and therefore it would be idolatry there to adore\nhim; but in _another_ part of the _same_ prayer-book, you teach children\nthat He is _present_; and that they _verily_ and _indeed take_ Him and\n_receive_ Him in the _Lord's Supper_. The Act of Parliament of Edward\nVI., for the making of this Common Prayer-book, declares it to be a work\nof the Holy Ghost; but I hope you will excuse me for saying, that I think\nit was a very curious Holy Ghost, and whether it was black, or white,\nreally I have not sufficient of the prophet in me to divine. But how was\nthis _manifest_ contradiction, introduced into your prayer-book? Why, I\nwill tell you; the doctrine of the _real_ presence of our Saviour in the\nBlessed Sacrament, had been believed by the great body of Christians,\never since the time of our Saviour, until the Reformation. Luther and\nZuinglius, indeed, as you know, were convinced _by the devil_, that our\nSaviour was _not_ present in the Blessed Sacrament, and that, therefore,\nit would be idolatry to believe it; but then, how were they to manage to\nsubstitute their new-fangled opinions, for the constant belief of all\nformer christian ages? Why, they made flesh and fish of them; they mixed\ntogether again the word of God with the inventions of man, and then,\nthought that the people's orthodox stomachs, would _swallow better_ their\nnew-fangled religious ideas.\n\nBut, what has often amused me the most, in your scriptural Church, is\nthis; you solemnly declare, that the doctrine of Catholics, is\nidolatrous; but, should any of these poor Catholic sinners, condescend to\nlay their idolatrous bones, in any of your churchyards; what do you\n_then_ declare? Why, that you commit to the dust, this Catholic, (who\naccording to you during life has been a most idolatrous sinner,) \"in the\nsure, and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord\nJesus Christ;\" for you would thus pray: \"O merciful God, we meekly\nbeseech Thee, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him\n(Christ) as our hope is, this our brother doth.\" Thus you tell us, that\nduring life, we Catholics live in the horrible sin of idolatry, and then,\nafter death, you are willing to commit us, _for a comfortable fee_, \"to\nthe dust, in the sure, and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal\nlife, through our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\nAgain, you often warn the people, against the idolatrous practice of\npraying to the Saints, and assure the people, there is _only one_\nmediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, on Sundays, you have no\ndifficulty, in recommending the sick, to the prayers of the faithful.\nBut, why should _you_ do _this_, when according _to you_, there is _only\none_ mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ? If _you_ can thus ask the prayers\nof the faithful, without injuring the mediation of our Saviour; why\ncannot the _Catholic_, ask the prayers of the Saints, without injuring\nthe mediation of Jesus Christ? O! but you will say, the Saints, and\nAngels cannot hear our prayers. Well but does not the Scripture tell us,\n\"that the devil goes about, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may\ndevour,\" and does not our Saviour say, \"there is more joy in heaven, over\none sinner doing penance, than over ninety-nine just?\" It appears,\ntherefore, the devils know, and hear what is passing upon earth, and why\nshould not the saints and angels of God? Nay, it is evident, they _must_\nknow and hear things, which are passing upon earth, otherwise how could\nthey rejoice _in heaven_, on the conversion of sinners _on earth_?\n\nBut, as you boast so much of the admirable, spiritual treasures of your\nprayer-book, and of your scriptural Church, just tell me, most Reverend\nGentlemen, why they have never yet, been able to produce a single saint?\nThe Scripture, tells us, that a tree, may be known from _its fruit_. And\nyet, among all the rich spiritual treasures, of your prayer-book, and of\nyour scriptural Church, for these three hundred years, you have _never_\nyet produced a person, who, on account of his virtue and piety, has been\nhonoured by posterity with the name of _saint_. Nay, so great is your\npoverty in _this respect_, that your Church, has been obliged to _steal\nCatholic_ Saints, and barefacedly insert _them_, in your _Protestant_\ncalendar. Really most Reverend Gentlemen, your scriptural Church, is of a\nvery strange texture. I have shewn you above, how remarkable she has\nalways been for forgery; I have also shewn you, how she unjustly robbed\nthe poor of their just rights, and how, she has endeavoured, by all means\npossible, to rob us of the honourable name of Catholic; and how, she has\nstolen many of our great Catholic Saints, and presumptuously inserted\n_them_ in her _Protestant_ calendar. Really, Gentlemen, may I not exclaim\nwith the poet--\n\n                  \"Can such things be,\n    And overcome us like a summer's cloud,\n    Without our special wonder!\"\n\nBut, Sir, if the Protestant prayer-book, and the Protestant religion, be\nsuch a monstrous compound of inconsistencies and errors, as you would\nfain lead us to suppose, pray tell us, why England, was so foolish, as to\nrenounce the Catholic, and embrace the Protestant faith? The answer to\nthis objection I would most willingly waive, as it would lead me into a\nfield of persecution, and _cruelty_, over which my feelings would not\nwish to travel. But as the answer to the above objection, has been so\nably given, by a _Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_\nLord, I think I cannot do _better_, than give it in his own words. And\n_mind_, when you read this letter, you must not imagine, that you are\nreading the _mere_ opinions of _this_ writer; no, the opinions which he\nthere states, are _incontestible facts_, which stand, almost as large as\nlife, in our English Statute-Book; and are there, recorded so plainly,\nthat no man in his senses, can have the presumption to deny them. I beg\nleave, therefore, to lay before you, the following letter, of a\n_Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_ lord, on the present\nsubject; and I am sure, that the incontestible facts, _facts of our own\nEnglish Statute-book_, there stated, will convince you, how England once\nCatholic, was brought over to Protestantism.\n\n     A LETTER TO LORD TENTERDEN,\n\n     LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND.\n\n                                                  _April 6th, 1829._\n\n       \"MY LORD,\n\n     \"I have read the report of your Lordship's speech, made on the\n     4th instant, on the second reading of the Catholic Bill, and\n     there is one passage of it on which I think it my duty thus\n     publicly to remark. The passage to which I allude relates to\n     the character of the _Law-established Church_, and also to the\n     probable fate that will, in consequence of this bill, attend\n     her in Ireland.[O]\n\n     \"Now, with very sincere respect for your Lordship, I do think\n     it my duty to the people of this country, to show that the\n     character which you have given to the Church of England as by\n     _law_ established, is not correct; to show that she is not, and\n     never has been, _tolerant in matters of religion_; and is not,\n     and never has been, _favourable to civil liberty_. In short,\n     with most sincere respect for your Lordship, with greater\n     respect for you than I have ever had for any public functionary\n     in England, and with the greatest admiration of your conduct in\n     your high and important office, with all these, I think it my\n     duty _flatly to contradict_ your Lordship with regard to the\n     character of this Church, and especially in the two particulars\n     mentioned by you. I do not charge you with insincerity: for why\n     should you not be in error as to this matter, when I know that\n     _twenty or thirty years ago_ I myself should, in a similar\n     case, have said just what you have now said on this subject?\n     Nevertheless, it being error, and gross error too, and I\n     _knowing it to be error_, I am bound, in duty to my readers, to\n     expose the error; and I am the more strictly bound, because\n     this error coming from you, is the more likely to be widely\n     spread.\n\n     \"First, then, my Lord, let us take your proposition, 'that\n     there is no Church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your\n     Lordship has never read her history; I am sure you have not; if\n     you had, you never would have uttered these words. Not being\n     content to deal in general terms, I will _not_ say that she has\n     been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that\n     the world ever saw; that she started at first, armed with\n     halters, ripping-knives, axes, and racks; that her footsteps\n     were marked with the blood, while her back bent under the\n     plunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and that for\n     refinement in cruelty, and extent of rapacity, she never had an\n     equal, whether corporate or sole. I will not thus speak of her\n     in general terms, but will lay before your Lordship some\n     historical _facts_, to make good that _contradiction_ which I\n     have given to your words. I assert that this LAW-CHURCH is the\n     most INTOLERANT Church I ever read or heard of; and this\n     assertion I now proceed to make good.\n\n     \"This Church began to _exist_ in 1547, and in the reign of\n     Edward VI. Until now the religion of the country had been for\n     several years under the tyrant Henry VIII. a sort of mongrel;\n     but now it became wholly Protestant by LAW. The Articles of\n     Religion and the Common Prayer-book were now drawn up, and were\n     established by Acts of Parliament. The Catholic altars were\n     pulled down in all the Churches; the priests, on pain of ouster\n     and fine, were compelled to teach the new religion, that is to\n     say, to be apostates; and the people who had been born and bred\n     Catholics were not only punished if they heard mass, but were\n     also punished if they did not go to hear the new parsons; that\n     is to say, if they refused to become apostates. The people,\n     smarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several\n     parts, and, indeed, all over the country. They complained that\n     they had been robbed of their religion, and of the relief to\n     the poor which the old Church gave; and they demanded that the\n     mass and the monasteries should be restored, and that the\n     priests should not be allowed to marry. And how were they\n     answered? The bullet and bayonet at the hand of German troops\n     slaughtered a part, caused another part to be hanged, another\n     part to be imprisoned and flogged, and the remainder to submit,\n     outwardly at least, to the LAW-CHURCH; (and now mark this\n     tolerant and merciful Church,) many of the old monastics and\n     priests, who had been expelled from their convents and livings,\n     were compelled to beg their bread about the country, and they\n     thus found subsistence among the pious Catholics. This was an\n     eye-sore to the LAW-CHURCH, who deemed the very existence of\n     these men who had refused to apostatize, a libel on her.\n     Therefore, in company, actually in company with the law that\n     founded the new Church, came forth a law to punish beggars, by\n     burning them in the face with a red-hot iron, and by making\n     them slaves for two years, with power in their masters to make\n     them wear an iron collar. Your Lordship must have read this Act\n     of Parliament, passed in the first year of the first Protestant\n     reign, and coming forth in company with the Common Prayer-book.\n     This was tolerant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here\n     of this Church being \"favourable to civil and religious\n     liberty.\" Not content with stripping these faithful Catholic\n     priests of their livings; not content with turning them out\n     upon the wide world, this tolerant Church must cause them to\n     perish with hunger, or to be branded slaves.\n\n     \"Such was the tolerant spirit of this Church when she was\n     young. As to her burnings under Cranmer (who made the\n     Prayer-book), they are hardly worthy of particular notice, when\n     we have before us the sweeping cruelties of this first\n     Protestant reign, during which, short as it was, the people of\n     England suffered so much that the suffering actually thinned\n     their numbers; it was a people partly destroyed, and that too\n     in the space of about six years; and this is acknowledged even\n     in Acts of Parliament of that day. But this LAW-CHURCH was\n     established in reality during the reign of Old Bess, which\n     lasted forty-five years; that is, from 1558 to 1603; and though\n     this Church has always kept up its character, even to the\n     present day, its deeds during this long reign are the most\n     remarkable.\n\n     \"Bess (the shorter the name the better), established what she\n     called a _court of high commission_, consisting chiefly of\n     _bishops_ of your Lordship's '_most tolerant_ Church,' in order\n     to punish all who did not conform to her religious creed, she\n     being '_the head of the Church_.' This commission were\n     empowered to have control over the _opinions_ of all men, and\n     to punish all men according to their _discretion short of\n     death_. They had power to extort evidence by the _prison_ or by\n     the rack. They had power to compel a man (_on oath_) to _reveal\n     his thoughts_, and to _accuse himself, his friend, brother,\n     parent, wife, or child_; and this, too, on _pain of death_.\n     These monsters, in order to _discover priests_, and to crush\n     the old religion, _fined, imprisoned, racked_, and did such\n     things as would have made Nero shudder to think of. They sent\n     hundreds to the _rack_ in order to get from them confessions,\n     _on which confessions many of them were put to death_.\n\n     \"I have not room to make even an enumeration of the deeds of\n     religious persecution of this long and bloody reign; but I will\n     state a few of them.\n\n     \"1. It was _death_ to make a new Catholic priest within the\n     kingdom.--2. It was _death_ for a Catholic priest to come into\n     the kingdom from abroad.--3. It was _death_ to harbour a\n     Catholic priest coming from abroad.--4. It was _death_ to\n     confess to such a priest.--5. It was _death_ for any priest to\n     say mass. 6. It was _death_ for any one to hear mass. 7. It was\n     _death_ to _deny_ or _not to swear_, if called on, that this\n     woman was the head of the Church of Christ.--8. It was an\n     offence (punishable by heavy fine) _not to go to the Protestant\n     Church_. This fine was L20 _a lunar month_, or L250 a-year, and\n     of our present money, L3,250 a year. Thousands upon thousands\n     refused to go to the Law-Church; and thus the head of the\n     Church sacked thousands upon thousands of estates! The poor\n     conscientious Catholics who refused to go to the 'most\n     tolerant' Church, and who had no money to pay fines, were\n     crammed into the gaols, until the counties petitioned to be\n     relieved from the expense of keeping them. They were then\n     discharged, being first publicly whipped, and having their ears\n     bored with a red-hot iron. But this very great 'toleration' not\n     answering the purpose, an act was passed to banish for life all\n     these non-goers to Church, if they were not worth twenty\n     pounds; and, in case of return, they were to be punished with\n     death.\n\n     \"I am, my Lord, not making loose assertions here; I am all\n     along stating from Acts of Parliament, and the above form a\n     small sample of the whole; and this your Lordship must know\n     well. I am not declaiming, but relating undeniable facts; and\n     with facts of the same character, with a _bare list_, made in\n     the above manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names\n     of the persons put to death merely for _being Catholics_,\n     during this long and bloody reign, would, especially if it were\n     to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that of\n     _our_ army and navy, both taken together. The usual mode of\n     inflicting death was to hang the victim for a short time, just\n     to benumb his or her faculties; then cut down and instantly rip\n     open the belly, and _tear out the heart_, and hold it up, fling\n     the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut the\n     body into quarters, then _boil_ the head and quarters, and then\n     hang them up at the gates of cities, or other conspicuous\n     places. This was done, including Ireland, to many hundreds of\n     persons, merely for adhering to the Church in which they had\n     been born and bred. There were ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN\n     _ripped up and boiled_ in England in the years from 1577 to\n     1603; that is to say, in the last twenty-six years of Bess's\n     reign; and these might all have been spared if they would have\n     agreed to go to Church and _hear_ the Common Prayer! All, or\n     nearly all, of them were racked before they were put to death;\n     and the cruelties in prison, and the manner of execution, were\n     the most horrible that can be conceived. They were flung into\n     dungeons, and kept in their filth, and fed on bullock's liver,\n     boiled but unwashed tripe, and such things as dogs are fed\n     upon. Edward Genings, a priest, detected in saying _mass_ in\n     Holborn, was after sentence of death offered his pardon if he\n     would go to Church, but having refused to do this, and having\n     at the place of execution boldly said, that he would die a\n     thousand deaths rather than acknowledge the Queen to be the\n     spiritual _head_ of the Church, Topliffe, the attorney-general,\n     ordered the rope to be cut the moment the victim was turned\n     off, 'so that' (says the historian) 'the priest, being little\n     or nothing stunned, stood on his feet, casting his eyes towards\n     heaven, till the hangman tripped up his heels, and flung him on\n     the block, where he was ripped up and quartered.' He was so\n     much alive, even after the bowelling, that he cried with a loud\n     voice, 'Oh! it smarts!' And then he exclaimed, '_Sancte\n     Gregorie, ora pro me_:' while the hangman having sworn a most\n     wicked oath, cried, 'Zounds! his heart is in my hand, and yet\n     Gregory is in his mouth!'\n\n     \"The tolerance of the Law-Church was shown towards women as\n     well as towards men. There was a Mrs. Ward, who, for assisting\n     a priest to escape from prison (the crime of that priest being\n     saying mass), was imprisoned, flogged, racked, and finally\n     hanged, ripped up, and quartered. She was executed at Tyburn,\n     on the 30th of August, 1588. At her trial the judges asked if\n     she had done the thing laid to her charge. She said 'Yes!' and\n     that she was happy to reflect that she had been the means of\n     'delivering that innocent lamb from the hands of those bloody\n     wolves.' They in vain endeavoured to terrify her into a\n     confession relative to the place whither the priest was gone;\n     and when they found threats unavailing, they promised her\n     pardon if she would go to Church; but she answered, that she\n     would lose many lives if she had them, rather than acknowledge\n     the heretical Church. They, therefore, treated her very\n     savagely, ripped her up while in her senses, and made a mockery\n     of her naked quarters.\n\n     \"There was a Mrs. Clithero pressed to death at York, in the\n     year 1586. She was a lady of good family, and her crime was\n     relieving and harbouring priests. She refused to plead, that\n     she might not tell a lie, nor expose others to danger. She was,\n     therefore, pressed to death, in the following manner. She was\n     laid on the floor, on her back. Her hands and feet were bound\n     down as close as possible. Then a great door was laid upon her,\n     and many hundred weights placed upon that door. Sharp stones\n     were put under her back, and the weights pressing upon her\n     body, first broke her ribs, and finally, though by no means\n     quickly, extinguished life. Before she was laid on the floor,\n     Fawcett, the sheriff, commanded her to be stripped naked, when\n     she, with four women who accompanied her, requested him, on\n     their knees, for the honour of womanhood, that this might be\n     dispensed with; but he refused. Her husband was forced to flee\n     the country; her little children who wept for their dear and\n     good mother, were taken up, and being questioned concerning\n     their religious belief, and answering as they had been taught\n     by her, were severely whipped, and the eldest, who was but\n     twelve years old, was cast into prison.\n\n     \"Need I go on, my Lord? Twenty large volumes, allotting only\n     one page to each case, would not, if we were to include\n     Ireland, contain an account of those who have fallen victims to\n     their refusal to conform to this 'most tolerant Church in the\n     world.' Nay, a hundred volumes, each volume being 500 pages,\n     and one page allowed to each victim, would not suffice for the\n     holding of this bloody record. Short of death by ripping up,\n     there were, _death_ by martial law, _death_ in prison, and this\n     in cases without number, banishment and loss of estate. Doctor\n     Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the end of the\n     _Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae_, gives the names of about\n     twelve hundred who had suffered in this way, before the year\n     1588; that is to say, before the great heat of the 'tolerance.'\n     In this list there are 21 bishops, 120 monastics, 13 deans, 14\n     archdeacons, 60 prebendaries, 530 priests, 49 doctors of\n     divinity, 18 doctors of law, 15 masters of colleges, 8 earls,\n     10 barons, 26 knights, 326 gentlemen, 60 ladies and\n     gentlewomen. Many of all those, and, indeed, the greater part\n     of them, died in prison, and several of them died while under\n     sentence of death.\n\n     \"There, my Lord, I do not think that you will question the\n     truth of this statement: and if you cannot, I hope you will\n     allow, that no lover of truth and justice ought to be silent\n     while reports of speeches are circulating, calling this 'the\n     _most tolerant_ Church in the world.' But, my Lord, why need I,\n     in addressing myself to you on this subject, do more than refer\n     you to the cruel, the savage, the bloody penal code? Leaving\n     poor half-murdered Ireland out of the question, what have I to\n     do, in answer to your praises of this Church, and your\n     assertion as to its tolerance, but to request you to remember\n     the enactments in the following Acts of Old Bess, the head and\n     the establisher of this Church? Stat. i. chap. 1 and 2; Stat.\n     v. chap. 1; Stat. xii. chap. 2; Stat. xxiii. chap. 1; Stat.\n     xxvii. chap. 2; Stat. xxix. chap. 6; Stat. xxxv. chap. 1; Stat.\n     xxxv. chap. 2? What have I to do, my Lord, but to request you\n     to look at, or rather to call to mind those laws of plunder and\n     of blood; _fine, fine, fine_; _banish, banish, banish_; or\n     _death, death, death_ in every line? Your Lordship knows that\n     this is true: you know that all these horrors, all this hellish\n     tyranny, that the whole arose out of a desire to make this\n     Protestant Church predominant. How, then, can this Protestant\n     Church be called 'the most tolerant in the world?' I have here\n     given a mere sample of the doings of this Law-Church. I have\n     not taken your Lordship to Ireland, half-murdered Ireland; nor\n     have I even hinted at many acts done in England during Bess's\n     reign, each of which would have excited the indignation of\n     every virtuous man on earth; but I must not omit to mention two\n     traits of tolerance in this Church: FIRST, Edward VI. was\n     advised to _bring his sister Mary to trial_, and, of course to\n     punishment, for not conforming to the Law-Church; and she was\n     saved only by the menaces of her cousin, the Emperor Charles V.\n     SECOND, when Mary, Queen of Scotland, had been condemned to\n     die, she, though she earnestly sued for it, WAS NOT ALLOWED TO\n     HAVE A PRIEST TO PERFORM THE RELIGIOUS OFFICES DEEMED SO\n     NECESSARY IN SUCH CASES. They brought the Protestant Dean of\n     Peterborough to pray by or with her; but she would not hear\n     him. When her head fell from the block the Dean exclaimed, 'So\n     let our Queen's enemies perish!' And the Earl of Kent responded\n     'Amen.' Baker in his Chronicle, p. 273, says, that the death of\n     this Queen was earnestly desired, because 'that if she lived,\n     the religion received in England could not subsist.'\n\n     \"This Church has been no _changeling_; she has been of the same\n     character from the day of her establishment to the present\n     hour; in Ireland her deeds have surpassed those of Mahomet; but\n     it would take a large volume to put down a bare list of her\n     intolerant deeds. She at last, however, seems to be nearly at\n     the end of her tether; the nation has always been making\n     sacrifices to her haughty predominance. Boulogne and Calais\n     were the first sacrifices; _poor-rates_, and an _enormous\n     debt_, and a _standing army_, and a _civil list_ have followed;\n     all, yea all, to be ascribed to the predominance of this\n     Church, and her haughty spirit of ascendancy. But now the\n     nation has made so many and such great sacrifices to her, that\n     _it can make no more_. It cannot venture on _another civil war_\n     (about the _twentieth_), in order to support the ascendancy of\n     this Church; and be you assured, my Lord, that that hierarchy\n     in Ireland, to uphold which you seem so very anxious, is not\n     much longer to be upheld by any power on earth, seeing that all\n     the miseries of Ireland, all of them, without a single\n     exception, are to be traced directly to that hierarchy: and in\n     these miseries _England sees terrific danger_.\n\n     \"The case is very plain. The opponents of the Catholic Bill\n     say, We dislike it, because it exposes the Church, and\n     especially the _Irish Church_, to imminent _danger_. The answer\n     of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger without _risking a\n     civil war_; and the State _cannot afford that_. The Law-Church\n     might reply, Why there have been many, many civil wars carried\n     on for the purpose of upholding my ascendancy; but to that the\n     Duke might rejoin, Very true; but we have now a\n     paper-money-system (also made to uphold you) _which cannot live\n     in civil war_, and the death of which may produce that of the\n     State itself; and, therefore, you must be now left to support\n     your ascendancy by your talents, piety, zeal, charity,\n     humility, and sound doctrine. This is the true state of the\n     case, my Lord, and, therefore, unless the Church can support\n     itself by these means, it is manifestly destined to fall.\n\n       \"I am your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servant,\n\n                                            \"WM. COBBETT.\"\n\nMost Reverend Gentlemen, after reading the above letter, (and mind, the\nwriter informs you, that what he there asserts, is proved by acts of\nparliament,) after reading the above letter, can it for a moment be\nthought strange, that England should have left the Catholic, and embraced\nthe Protestant faith? Nay, is it not more strange, with all the above\n_incontestible_ facts before us, is it not, I repeat, more strange, that\nthere should have been left, a single Catholic, or a single fibre of\nCatholicity, in this country? And had it not been for the providence of\nGod, this would certainly have been the case; but the Scripture\nbeautifully informs us, \"that to them, who love God, all things work\ntogether unto good.\" (_Rom._ viii., 28.)\n\nBut, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have ranged over so much spiritual\nground, and have been so busily occupied in bagging black game, that I\nhave nearly forgotten the famous text, \"extraordinary and presumptuous\nmovement,\" which your meeting were so kind as to give me to preach from.\nReally, I must not forget _my text_, otherwise you will begin to\nconclude, I must be a very _bungling_ preacher. Let us, then, now return\nto my famous text. I think, that you must have been already convinced,\nfrom what I have stated, in the first part of this address to you Clergy,\nthat your scriptural Church, has been for a long time, making a most\n\"extraordinary and presumptuous movement,\" on the _pockets_ of\nEnglishmen. By _now_ recapitulating what I have just said in the latter\npart of this address, I think it will be also plain, that your Church has\nbeen making, for a long time, a most \"extraordinary and presumptuous\nmovement\" on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.\n\nI have shown you, as above, what a beautiful Church Christ built, which,\nerected on an infallible and imperishable foundation, was to be the\nChurch of all ages, with the world for its boundaries, and time for its\nduration. I have shown you, how your first Reformers, and your Protestant\nscriptural Church, had the barefacedness to assert, that this Church of\nChrist once fell into error, although _God_ had pledged his solemn word,\nthat this Church _never should err_; I have also shown you, how this\nassertion of Christ's Church falling into error, was the _mere_ ipse\ndixit of the _first_ Reformers, and of your scriptural Church; and that\nthey had both unfortunately forgotten to prove, _when_, _where_, and\n_how_, this _infallible_ Church of Christ had fallen _into error_. Now, I\nappeal to you, if this was not, a most \"extraordinary and presumptuous\nmovement,\" of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.\nI have also shown you, the characters of the first Reformers, who the\nspiritual instructor of some of them was, and what strange, paradoxical,\nand new ideas, they advanced, and how, by forgery and lies, they\ncontrived to palm their new-fangled religious ideas, on the minds of the\npeople. Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a most \"extraordinary and\npresumptuous movement,\" of these Reformers, and of your scriptural\nChurch, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? I have likewise shown you, how\nyour scriptural Church, assures her people, in her Thirty-nine Articles,\nthat the Scriptures are the only means of their salvation; and I have\nalso shown you, how the first Reformers and your scriptural Church, have\nfalsified, and mutilated, those sacred volumes. On the one hand, it is\ndeclared, that the Scriptures are the _only_ means of salvation, and on\nthe other hand, it is plain, that these sacred volumes, have been\nfalsified, and mutilated. What, then, are the people to do in this awful\nfix? Really, Gentlemen, is not this, another most \"extraordinary and\npresumptuous movement\" of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of\nEnglishmen? I have shown you, also, with what kind of a book of Common\nPrayer, your Church honoured the people. I have shown you, how, _at\nfirst_ it was declared, to be the work of the Holy Ghost; how then, it is\ndeclared _not_ to be the work of the _Holy Ghost_, but the work of\n_schism_; how it is then recalled, and adopted, as a most fit means of\ndevotion for the people. I have shown you, how artfully God's holy Word,\nand man's human inventions, are there mixed up together; and that, when\nthey come in contact with each other, in what strange and paradoxical\nsituations they place your scriptural Church. Really, Gentlemen, is not\nthis also a most \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" of your\nscriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? Our Saviour\ndeclared, that his kingdom was not of _this_ world; and hence, neither\nhe, nor his apostles, endeavoured to propagate, and support his doctrine,\nby force, cruelty, and persecution. But does not the above letter, and do\nnot acts of Parliament prove, that it was by bribery among the great\nones, and by force, and cruelty, and persecution, and death, on the\nmiddle and lower classes, that your scriptural Reformation was\nintroduced, and forced on England? Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a\nmost \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" of your scriptural Church,\non the _consciences_, and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen?\n\nNow, most Reverend Gentlemen, you and many of your reverend body, have\nbeen lately calling public meetings, in which you have unjustly\nendeavoured, to rouse the indignation of the people, against the Pope for\nmaking, \"an extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the Protestants\nof England. Now I have plainly proved, in my first address, that the Pope\nhas _not_ made an \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement\" on the\nProtestants of England; for, by the spirit of the English law, as I have\nshown, the Pope is _perfectly justified in all he has done_. But\nGentlemen, is your Protestant Church, justified _in all_ the\n\"extraordinary and presumptuous movements,\" which, I have shown, she has\nbeen making so long on _the pockets_, and on _the intellects_ of\nEnglishmen? Certainly not. Thus you see, you have unfortunately thrown\nyour Scriptural Church (which feeds you so well with more than nine\nmillions a-year) into the very grave, which you have been so charitably,\nand officiously, unjustly digging for the poor Pope. Really, most\nReverend Gentlemen, I think every one, will conclude, that this is a most\nextraordinary and presumptuous movement, of _you_ and _your_ reverend\nbody, on your good, and kind mother the Church. May they not justly apply\nto you, the words of the old proverb, \"Physicians, cure yourselves?\" Most\nReverend Gentlemen, to those clergymen, who have adopted the above\ninconsistent conduct, I can only say, I may applaud their intentions, but\nI must condemn their bigotry. They may indeed, be friends to their Church\nin their hearts, but their mouths, and pens, are her most dangerous\nenemies.\n\nBefore I conclude, I beg leave to say a few words about the Puseyites, a\nfew words to the dissenters, and a few words to the English people; and\nthen, I must drop the curtain, and beg leave to retire for the present.\n\nThere is a circumstance, connected with the Whitby meeting, upon which I\nhave as yet made no remark. You came together, on that occasion, both\nministers and people, obedient to the trumpet call of Lord John Russell.\nNow, that trumpet blew two blasts, which gave \"no uncertain sound.\" The\n_first_, was to denounce the papal aggression; the _second_, was to warn\nyou of \"a danger, which alarmed him (Lord John Russell) much more than\nany aggression of a foreign sovereign; alarmed him more, than Pope and\nCardinal Archbishop, and territorial titles put together, more than the\nhierarchy, with all its mapping, and parcelling out of the land, nay,\nmore to be dreaded, than an invasion of England, by the fleets and armies\nof any earthly power!\" In the name of all that is terrible, what is this\ndanger, that is impending over us? He says that it is a danger, \"_already\nwithin the gates_.\" What does he mean? Why, Gentlemen, he means (and you\nall know it) Puseyism, and Popery, which have long been spreading, in the\n_very bosom_ of the _Protestant_ Church of England. Lord John proclaims\nto you, _this latter_ danger, even more loudly than _the former_; and\nyet, upon _this latter_ \"extraordinary and presumptuous movement,\" _you_\nwere silent at _your_ meeting, _each_ and _all_; you heard him\nproclaiming, that the abomination of desolation, had got possession of\nthe holy place; and that the bewitching fascination, of the Harlot of\nRome, had reduced even some of the Protestant Bishops, into dalliance\nwith her; and yet, _not one_ word, from _any_ minister among _you_,\nProtestant, Independent, or Wesleyan, _not one word_ either _to deny_ the\nexistence of the danger, or to propose means to _ward_ it off. You\n_readily_ flocked together, to repel the _lesser_ danger, but, the _much\nmore_ alarming danger, (according to Lord John) the danger \"within the\ngates,\" it seemed touched _you not at all_. Really, _in this_ you appear,\nto be worthy disciples of Lord John Russell, who sat nearly seven years,\nunder the Rev. Mr. Bennett, with all this danger staring him in the face,\nand yet, blew not _then_ a _single_ blast of his _warning_ trumpet.\nReally, Gentlemen, what was the cause of your silence, on this occasion?\nWas it lack of zeal, or lack of courage on your part? We shall, perhaps,\nbe better able to judge of this, when I have told you, what sort of\nPuseyite enormities, Lord John has detected in the Church, and how, he\ntakes upon himself, to chastise and correct them. Never, since the days\nof Cromwell, the Vicar-General of Henry VIII., has any layman, or\nchurchman either, dared to play such tricks, or brandish such a rod, in\nthe face of the Church of England, as this imperious minister has done!\nMark, how this leader of the House of Commons, this lay Metropolitan of\nall England, superseding both York and Canterbury, see, how he calls to\naccount his venerable brother, the Bishop of Durham. \"Clergymen of our\nChurch, who have subscribed the thirty-nine articles, and acknowledged\nthe Queen's supremacy, have been the most forward, to lead their flocks,\nstep by step, to the very verge of the precipice.\" Well, sad shepherds\nthese, to lead their flocks, to the very verge of the precipice, and\n_sadder still_, that one thousand, eight hundred of these Church of\nEngland Clergymen, have signed a protest, _against the Queen's supremacy\nas recently_ exercised; thus rebelling, against the acknowledged, and\nsworn head of their Church. Well, Lord John thus describes the danger,\n\"within the gates.\"\n\n(1.) The honour paid to saints; (2.) the claim of infallibility for the\nChurch; (3.) the superstitious use of the sign of the cross; (4.) the\nmuttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it is\nwritten; (5.) the recommendation of auricular confession; (6.) the\nadministration of penance, and (7.) absolution.\n\nAll these things, are pointed out by _certain_ clergymen of the _Church_\nof _England_, as worthy of adoption! Here, according to Lord John\nRussell, is the \"enemy within the gates.\" Here, are seven enormous\nerrors, pointed out by a layman, as corrupting, and disfiguring the pure,\nthe Scriptural, the reformed Church of England. I will make a few remarks\non each, marking the number of each, as I proceed.\n\n(1st. The honour paid to saints.) So certain Reverend Gentlemen of the\nChurch of England, are no longer to honour the saints, as they have done;\nthe Whig prime minister, will not permit it. But can it be, that Lord\nJohn here intimates, that these Protestant Clergymen, have been paying\n_divine_ honour to the saints? Why, this would be idolatry! \"Thou that\nabhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?\" Catholics, indeed, honour\nthe saints, but a true Catholic, would sooner die, than give _divine_\nhonour to any saint, or to all the saints in bliss. But, whether you\nReverend Protestant Gentlemen, are to honour them at all, or with what\nsort of honour, or with what degree of it; all this you will learn,\nperhaps, from Lord John Russell, or from some of his Bishops. In the\nmeantime, you had better observe the _Protestant_ Church doctrine, as to\nholy angels, laid down in your _Protestant_ collect, on the feast of St.\nMichael, where your scriptural Church, prays, that \"the holy angels, may,\nby God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth.\" (Coll. of St.\nMich. Ch. Eng. Prayer Book.) Surely, this doctrine of your Church of\nEngland prayer book, will not alarm Lord John Russell, and surely, the\nBishop of London, will not openly reprehend this, in his next charge, to\nthe clergy of his diocese; although, in my humble opinion, it smells very\nstrongly of the popish doctrine of angels, and saints, and looks very\nlike, leading the people, step by step, to the very verge of that\nprecipice.\n\n(2ndly. The claim of infallibility for the Church.) It seems, some of\nyou, Reverend Gentlemen, have had the _temerity_ to preach up, the\ninfallibility of the Church. _This_, is to be \"put down.\" _You_ are not\nto claim _infallibility_ for _your_ Church. Infallibility belongs to the\n_Catholic_ Church, which is \"built upon a rock,\" which is the \"pillar and\nground of truth,\" \"formed upon the prophets, and apostles, having Christ\nfor its chief corner stone,\" with which Church Christ has promised, \"to\nabide all days, even to the end of the world.\" Such is the Catholic\nChurch, according to the _Scriptures_. But, as regards _your Church_,\nReverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching, that your Church\nis _not_ infallible, is not built upon a rock, _not_ founded upon the\nprophets and apostles,--has not Christ for its chief corner stone,--for\nif _she had_, she would _assuredly_ be _infallible_. But above all, you\nare to teach, either that Christ did _not_ promise, to be always with His\nChurch, or that, even his abiding presence, with the Church, is _not_\nsufficient to make _her_ infallible; at all events, you are to teach (if\nyou teach anything) that _your_ Church, has _no claims_ to infallibility,\nand that she may be involved in the grossest errors, and may be\naltogether, misleading and deluding, both you and your flocks. This\nshows, what a cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was\nsometime ago, sounding with _such iteration_, from the housetops, crying,\n\"HEAR THE CHURCH.\" This cry, has died away, and I suspect, Dr. Hook will\nnot _renew_ it, with the return of spring. For why, in the name of common\nsense, should we hear, or follow the guidance of this Church of England,\nwhich does not pretend, to be a _sure_ and _infallible_ guide? Or where\nindeed, shall we find the Church? In convocation? that has been\nextinguished. In synod? She is not permitted to hold one. On the bench of\nBishops? The Bishops, are _notoriously_ at sixes and sevens, all over the\nland, both on matters of _faith_, _discipline_, and _ceremonies_.\n\nYours, Reverend Gentlemen, is a _hard_ lot! I know nothing to equal to\nit. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound slaves of a\n_fallible_ Church, as if she were _infallible_. The Bible, and the Bible\nalone, is your rule of faith, and yet, you are remorselessly compelled,\nto subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, which have been _added_ to the\nScriptures, and which are in part self-contradictory, and in part,\nimpossible to be understood.[P] You exult in freedom of thought, and in\nthe privilege of private interpretation, but if you _dare_ to exercise\n_either_, you are dragged to the ecclesiastical courts, to answer for\nyour temerity, at the bar of a Lay Judge. Ah! Reverend Gentlemen,\nCranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, did an _evil_ thing; they bowed their\n_own_ necks, and prepared for _your_ necks, a galling yoke, when to rid\nthemselves of the supremacy, of the divinely appointed head of the\nChurch, they cried out, \"we have no king but Caesar.\" From _that_ day to\n_this_, Parliament, and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your\ninheritance, both _spiritual_ and _temporal_. You _must_ either submit to\n_Lay_ tribunals, or there are _no loaves_ and _fishes_ for _you_.\n\nHow beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,--\n\n    \"For she was of that stubborn crew\n    Of errant saints, whom all men grant,\n    To be the true Church militant:\n    Such as do build their faith upon,\n    The holy text of pike and gun;\n    Decide all controversies by\n    Infallible artillery;\n    And prove their doctrines orthodox\n    By apostolic blows and knocks;\n    Which always must be going on,\n    And still be doing, never done:\n    As if religion were intended,\n    For nothing else, but to be mended.\"\n\n(3rdly. The superstitious use of the sign of the cross.) The true\nCatholic, knows that the Son of God, obtained the salvation of the world,\nby dying _on a cross_, for all mankind; and hence, like the great St.\nPaul, he glories in the cross of Christ, and frequently crosses himself,\nwith this holy sign, to remind himself of Jesus Christ, who obtained so\nmany spiritual blessings for mankind, by the great sacrifice, which he\nonce consummated _on the cross_. Hence the Catholic Church, keeps the\ncross, as the sign of the pledge of our redemption, in all her churches,\nand chapels, and by this holy sign, reminds the faithful, that all the\nblessings, that they either _have_ received, or _can_ receive, _must_\ncome through the _merits_ of Jesus Christ. Hence, in the oblation of her\nholy sacrifice, in the administration of her sacraments, and in all her\nsacred rites, and ceremonies, she is continually using this holy sign, to\nremind both herself, and the faithful, that it is by the cross, that is,\nby the merits of our Saviour's death, and passion, that she, and all\nother faithful, are to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil.\nHence, this sign was used by antiquity with the greatest veneration.\nThus, Tertullian beautifully says, \"We sign ourselves with the sign of\nthe cross, on the forehead, whenever we go from home, or return, when we\nput on our clothes, or our shoes, when we go to the bath, or sit down to\nmeat, when we light our candles, when we lie down, and when we sit.\" But\nit appears, that the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, is\noffensive to Lord John, and, that it may lead people, step by step, to\nthe very verge of the precipice; and therefore, you clergymen, must not\nmake use of the sign of the cross, but you must keep the lion, and the\nunicorn, in _your_ churches, to remind the people, that _your_ church is\nthe church of men, as by Law established. You may indeed, bow at the name\nof Jesus, and kiss the Bible, before you swear by it, in a court of\njustice, but, in the house of God, you had better omit the superstitious\nuse of the sign of the cross, although, if _one_ of the popish ceremonies\nbe _superstitious_, it is manifest that the _other two_ ceremonies, must\nbe _also superstitious_.\n\n(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in\nwhich it is written.) Now, what this sentence really means, I am at a\nloss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct utterance, of the\nclergyman's enunciation, or it means, that some of these Protestant\nclergymen, have been performing certain parts, of the Church of England\nliturgy, like Catholics, in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to\ndetermine. It is a pity, when Lord John is finding fault, about\nmuttering, so as to disguise the language, (and of course the meaning,)\nof his Church liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express\nhimself, in more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord\nJohn's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my popish\nunderstanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think, that Lord John,\nis here warning his clergy, against the use of the Latin tongue, in the\nChurch liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly right. For the English\nProtestant Church, is a _modern_ church, its _language_, therefore,\nshould be _modern_, that its _liturgy_, may announce to posterity the\nperiod, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is an _ancient_\nChurch, and therefore, _she_ preserves her _ancient_ liturgy, the\nlanguage of which, remounts to the _origin_ of Christianity. I do not\nbelieve, that history, can furnish an instance of a people, who ever\nchanged the language of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time,\nchange their religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church,\nsingular in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly\nnot. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians,\nGeorgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the\nliturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which\nare written in languages, unintelligible to the common people. The same,\nwas the discipline of the Jews, after their captivity; and we do not\nfind, that it was ever blamed by Our Saviour. But is it true, that the\nmodern Church of England, has always held in such abhorrence, the\ncelebration of her liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in\nthe year 1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English\nProtestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were\ncompelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the celebration of the\nEnglish liturgy; though these poor Irish, were _utterly_ unacquainted,\nwith the English language. Hence, Dr. Heylin, in his History of the\nProtestant Reformation, (Eliz. p. 128.) says, \"The people, by that\nstatute, are required under severe penalties, to frequent their churches,\nand to be frequent, at the reading of the _English_ liturgy, which they\nunderstand, _no more_ than they do the Mass.\" * * * \"By which,\" continues\nthis Protestant writer, \"we have furnished the Papists, with an excellent\nargument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in\n_such_ a language, as the people do _not_ understand.\"\n\nBut is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to some of the\nProtestant Clergymen, of the present day? I answer no; for in the Act of\nUniformity, the Protestant minister in Ireland, if he could not read the\n_English_, was permitted to read a _Latin_ translation, which was, no\ndoubt, equally _unintelligible_ to the most of his parishioners. (See\nDr. Heylin's Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of\nOxford, and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester, obtained\npermission from the head of their Church, to perform the divine service\nin the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom. iv., p. 217.) Thus you see,\nthat the muttering of the Liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in\nwhich it was written, is not (if I understand rightly Lord John's\nmeaning,) is not peculiar only to some of you Protestant ministers of the\npresent day; for it was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant\nancestors. But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and\nstraight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you, to adopt in\nyour Liturgy, a _modern_ language, significant of the _modern_ origin of\nyour Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the\nlanguage of your Liturgy, that your Church, is _so many_ hundred years\n_too late, to be the Church of Christ_.\n\nBut if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great\ncrime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and\nclergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the\nlanguage, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and\ncontradictions? Is it not a _notorious_ fact, that in _one_ Protestant\nChurch, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in\n_another_, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in _one_ Protestant\nparish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in _another_, one of\nan opposite, and contrary opinion; in _one_ Protestant Church, you have\nan altar, in _another_, you have a communion table; in _one_ Bishop's\nSee, the Protestant prelate _rigorously_ insists, on the _necessity_ of\nspiritual regeneration by baptism, in _another_ Bishop's See, it is\nacknowledged to be an _unnecessary_ act of religion; in Pimlico\nProtestant Church, you have auricular confession _insisted on_, in a\nLiverpool Protestant Church, you have the _punishment of death_,\nrecommended as a _penalty_ for such a practice; in short, is it not\n_notorious_ (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and\nClergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about _their\narticles of faith_, _matters of discipline_ and _ceremonies_? Really,\nwhat are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about\ntheir religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of\nits tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops,\nand Clergy to an account, on _this_ Babel muttering of religion, before\nhe chastised them, for the muttering of _the Liturgy_? The building of\nthe mighty tower of Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion\nof tongues; and be assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your\nScriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of\nher weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also be\ndemolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that \"a house\ndivided against itself, cannot stand?\" and the rains (of fallibility, and\nof muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the floods (of clerical\nprotestant dissensions) came, and the winds (of disunion among the\nbishops, about the necessity of baptismal regeneration) blew; and they\nbeat upon that house, (the Protestant, fallible, Babel, Church,) and it\nfell; and great was the _golden_ fall thereof, for it was built, _not_\nupon the rock of God's _infallible_ word, but upon the mere _fallible\ninventions_, and _pecuniary conveniences_ of men.\n\n(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which, I beg to add\n(the 7th) Absolution.)\n\nEvery well-instructed Catholic, knows that no man, _as man_, can forgive\nsins; but at the same time, he knows, that _God_ can forgive sins, and\nthat God, _can_ give that power to _man_; for the Apostles were men, and\nyet, Jesus Christ (as I shall shortly shew) gave his Apostles, a power to\nforgive sins. You know, that our Saviour, was both God and man, and that\nhe acted, sometimes as God, and sometimes, as man. Now, if you will read\nthe ninth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, you will find, that our\nSaviour worked a miracle, to prove that He as man, (but mind assisted by\nhis heavenly Father) had power to forgive sins, even on earth. Now, he\ngave this power, also to his Apostles, for we read in St. John's Gospel,\n(chap. xx. 22,) He \"breathed upon them,\" and said, \"Receive ye the Holy\nGhost: whose sins, you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins\nyou shall retain, they are retained.\" Now, why was not this power of\nforgiving sins, to extend also to _future_ ages? Are not God, and Jesus\nChrist, as good and as kind, _now_, as they were, in the _time_ of the\nApostles; and are there not, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_?\nIf therefore, God, and Jesus Christ, in their infinite mercy, gave this\npower of forgiving sins, _to the Apostles_, for the good of mankind then,\nand if there are, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_, in the\nname of common sense, why was not this power of God, given to the\nApostles for the benefit of mankind _then_, why was it not, to extend\nalso to all _future_ ages, for the benefit of mankind _afterwards_? No\nsuch things, cries out the Lay Metropolitan of England. Such doctrine,\nwould lead the people, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice.\nBut of what precipice? Would you believe it? to the recommendation of\nAuricular Confession, and Absolution, as laid down, in the _Church of\nEngland Prayer-book_.\n\nIn the Church of England form of Ordination, the Bishop says, to the\ncandidate for the priesthood: \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye\nshall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they\nare retained.\" These words, most Reverend Gentlemen, were said over each\nof you, by your Bishops, when you presented yourselves candidates, for\nordination. Now, did you receive any spiritual power, or was this a mere\nform? If you answer, it was a mere form, you then have no more power, in\nthis respect, than a mere layman; but if you answer, you did receive a\npower, it must have been, either a _declaratory_, or a _judicial_ power\nto forgive sins; if it was only a _declaratory_ power, viz., to declare,\nthat the sinner, would obtain forgiveness if he truly repented, then,\n_any layman_, possesses this power _without ordination_; for any layman,\ncan confidently declare, that _penitent_ sinners are pardoned; but if you\nreceived a _judicial_ power, to forgive sins, then, this is popish\ndoctrine, and this would lead you, and your flock, step by step, to the\nvery verge of the precipice. But to the verge of what precipice? Why your\nProtestant common prayer-book, shall now tell you. Really, most Reverend\nGentlemen, I am afraid of quoting this passage, from your prayer-book;\nfor it will not _merely lead_ you to _the verge_, but it will _hurl_ you,\nall headlong, down the precipice of the popish doctrine, of Auricular\nConfession, and Absolution.\n\nBut we had better, go step by step, and therefore, I will quote a _choice\npiece_, that occurs in your Protestant common prayer-book, just before\nthe recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution. Your godly\nprayer-book, says, in the visitation of the sick, \"the ministers shall\nnot omit, earnestly to move, such sick persons, as are of ability, _to be\nliberal to the poor_.\" It is a pity, O godly Church, that thou didst not\ngive this advice to thyself, at the Reformation, when thou stolest, so\nmuch money from the poor, and then, made the nation make up, by\nchurch-rates and poor-rates, for what thou hadst stolen. Thou art really\na very disinterested spiritual physician, for thou art most solicitous\nabout thy children, practising the virtue of _charity themselves_, but as\nfor _thyself_, thou will practise charity, as soon as it is convenient,\nor as soon as the spirit moves thee, or the nation makes thee.\n\nBut what comes next, in your godly prayer-book? Why, rank, and downright\nPopish doctrine, of auricular confession, and absolution. In the\nvisitation of the sick, your prayer-book thus says; \"Here shall the sick\nperson be moved to make a SPECIAL confession of _his sins_, if he feel\nhis conscience, troubled with any weighty matter. After which\n_confession_, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and earnestly\ndesire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to\nHis Church, to absolve all sinners, who truly repent, and believe in Him;\nof His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences: and by His authority\nCOMMITTED TO ME, I _absolve_ thee from all thy sins, in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.\" Really, most\nReverend Gentlemen, if all this, is not rank popish, auricular\nconfession, and absolution, I know not what is; and _mind_, standing as\nlarge as life, in _your_ Church of England, Common Prayer-book, which was\nmade by act of parliament, by \"the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the\nhonour of God.\" Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do _now_,\nwhen your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not only _led_ you to _the\nverge_, but _hurled_ you all headlong down to the _very_ bottom, of\npopish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why, you must either\nrenounce your Protestant prayer-book, and declare, it is _not_ a work of\nthe Holy Ghost, nor made for the honour of God; or your orthodox\nstomachs, must swallow, by wholesale, _this abomination of desolation_,\nof popish auricular confession, and absolution; and thus, allow the\ndreadful enemy, to remain \"within your gates,\" an enemy more terrible\nthan an hostile invasion by foreign powers.\n\n(6th. The administration of Penance.) This, most Reverend Gentlemen, is\nthe sixth error, in Lord John Russell's catalogue, of seven errors, but\nthe last, which I have to answer, as I have already, included the\nseventh, in the fifth error. If Lord John, wishes to intimate, that\nCatholics teach works of penance, to be of _themselves_ a _sufficient_\ncompensation for sin, Lord John has yet, to learn, the _first_ rudiments\nof the Catholic creed; but if he means, that Catholics consider the works\nof penance, as one of the conditions, on which our Saviour, is willing to\ncommunicate the merits of His death and passion, to the soul of the\nsinner, Lord John's meaning is just. But does Lord John, seriously\ncondemn this doctrine, founded, as it is, on the plainest evidence of\nscripture, and confirmed by the practice of the earliest ages? If I\nunderstand Lord John rightly, he certainly does. Lord John, is perhaps\nthe zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of Christ, and in his\nopinion, to do penance for sin, after the great sacrifice consummated on\nthe cross, is to lead the people, step by step, to the verge of an awful\nprecipice. If this, is Lord John's creed, it must, at least, be a very\nconsoling one. Indulge your passions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge\nyour passions, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer; fear not the\nrigours of penance; to weep and pray, to fast and give alms, to repent in\nsackcloth and ashes, are external ceremonies, which are confined to the\npopish creed; but to practise them, in our _new_ dispensation of _free_\ngrace, _as by law established_, would be, to lead the people, to the very\nverge of the popish precipice. It is curious to observe, how Lord John's\nliberation from penance (if I understand him rightly,) has improved, on\nthe rough sketch, which was delivered by our forefathers. St. Paul, was\naccustomed to keep under his body, and to bring it under subjection by\nacts of penance; and I have no doubt, he thought he was acting in a\nmanner, pleasing to Christ, and yet, we learn from Lord John's doctrine,\n(if I understand it rightly,) this great apostle, was leading the people,\nstep by step, to the very verge, of the awful precipice of penance. The\npenitents in ancient times, often spent whole years in works of penance;\nthey fasted and prayed, they lay prostrate at the porch of the Church,\nthey solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these\npenitential austerities, they hoped, they were fulfilling the will of the\nRedeemer, and yet, alas! according to Lord John's doctrine (if I\nunderstand it rightly) they were going, step by step, to the very verge\nof the awful precipice of penance. Even the learned men, who compiled the\nChurch of England, Common Prayer-book, appear to have been involved in\nthis awful error. \"There was formerly,\" they tell us, \"a godly\ndiscipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons, as stood\nconvicted of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and punished here,\nthat their souls, might be saved at the day of the Lord; and it were much\nto be wished, that this said discipline, may be restored.\" (Church Eng.\nCom. Pray. book.) Little did they imagine, that this godly discipline of\npenance, by means of which the souls of sinners, were to be saved in the\nday of the Lord, would be reproved by a Protestant layman, as an error,\nwhich would lead people, step by step, to the verge of an awful\nprecipice. Yet so (if I understand his meaning) says Lord John Russell,\nand he is lay Metropolitan of all England.\n\nI think I cannot better take leave of Lord John, than by addressing him\nin the words of the Reverend Mr. Bennett, under whose Puseyite teaching,\nhe sat for some time. \"If my course was insidious, (Lord John), why did\nyou take part in that course? If I so muttered the liturgy, as to\ndisguise its language, why did _you_ join in so glaring a profaneness,\nfor nearly seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,' why\ndid _you_, come to join in them, for nearly seven years? Why did _you_ so\nfar and so deeply join, as to receive at my hands, so late as Ash\nWednesday, 1849, the holy Eucharist, yourself and your family? If I were\none, of those designated in your letter, as bringing a greater danger,\nthan the Pope, why then, my lord, was it, that _you_ said not all this\nbefore?\" (Rev. Mr. Bennett's Letter to Lord John Russell.)\n\nIn conclusion, I can only say, that I am afraid Lord John Russell's\nletter, has been a most _unfortunate one for himself_; and as such, I\nregret it exceedingly. It has certainly placed him, in the opinion of\nsensible Englishmen, in a very ridiculous point of view; and how it will\nbe received by future ages, it is not for me to divine.\n\nMy dissenting Brethren, to you who have honourably come forward, and\nassisted us Catholics, in the late hurricane of bigotry, and of insults,\nI return you my mead of sincere thanks. Your conduct shows, that you have\nacted the part of consistent men, that you are true supporters of civil\nand religious liberty, and that you have not forgotten the former noble,\nand disinterested exertions of the late Daniel O'Connell, in your cause.\nYou cannot but remember, that the late Daniel O'Connell, nobly and\ndisinterestedly, battled for _your_ rights and privileges, on the field\nof civil and religious liberty, _even before_ he had gained those rights,\neither for the English Catholics, or for his dear country, poor\nIreland.[Q]\n\nBut what shall I say of those dissenters, who have joined with the\nProtestant Church, in the late fury and tirade against us Catholics? Can\nI call _them consistent_ men? Consistent men indeed! Do not all the\ndissenters, the Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, Baptists,\nUnitarians, and Quakers, do not all these dissenters deny, as well as we\nCatholics, the spiritual supremacy of the Queen? Nay, do not all these\ndissenters, claim _their_ spiritual rights and authority, _independent of\nthe Queen_? Why, therefore, will you refuse the exercise of their\nspiritual rights, to your _Catholic_ fellow creatures? Why will you\nunjustly deprive _them_ of those privileges, which are the _birth-right_\nof _every_ Englishman; nay, of every human creature in the world? Does\nnot the scripture, which you so often extol, tell you, \"that you ought\nnot to do unto others, that which you do not wish others to do unto you?\"\nWhat, then, are we to say of those dissenting ministers, or minister, who\non one day are seen claiming the power to give spiritual ordination to\nothers, then, shortly after, attending an Anti-Protestant Church meeting;\nand, lastly, see them or him, arranged by the side of the _Protestant_\nChurch, for the express purpose, of refusing to the _Catholic_ Church,\nthe exercise of those spiritual rights, which they, or he, had not long\nbefore deemed it their, or his right to assume? Nay, what is still worse,\nhe had _even_ wished to refuse them the rights of a base criminal, viz.,\nthat a charitable dissenter should not be allowed to speak, or merely ask\na question, in defence of the Pope, and of the benighted papists. Really,\nwas not _this_, a most inconsistent, \"extraordinary and presumptuous\nmovement,\" of this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if the\n_religious_ creed of this minister, be not _more consistent_ than his\n_political_ creed, I really envy him not the possession of it, and I\nthink I cannot do better, than address him in the words of the poet:\n\n    \"His notions fitted things so well\n    That, which was which, he could not tell,\n    But oftentimes, mistook the one\n    For t'other, as great clerks have done.\"\n\nI must now say a few words to the English, in general, and make a few\nremarks on the unjust manner, in which the Catholic religion, has in\ngeneral been hitherto, treated and abused. That you may the better\nunderstand this, I will make use of the following supposition. Let us\nsuppose, for a moment, that we were in a court of justice, that a person\nwas going to be tried, that some of you were witnesses against him, that\nthe rest of you, were to form the jury, and that I was to be the judge.\nNow, if we were to examine, _only_ the witnesses who were _against_ the\naccused, and _not_ allow a _single_ individual to speak for him, if we\nwere not, to allow the poor man to speak a word in his _own_ defence, and\nwere the jury, and the judge, then to pronounce him guilty, do you think,\nwe should treat that man _fairly_? _However innocent_ he might be, he was\nsure to be brought in _guilty_. And why? Because the witnesses were\nagainst him, the jury was against him, and the judge was against him; and\nnot a single word was allowed to be spoken in his defence. Now, ye honest\nmen of England, would you not think that man was treated very _unfairly_?\nWould you not feel for such a man? And would you not pity his case? I am\nsure you would, and all with one voice exclaim, \"Let the poor man have\n_fair play_, and let _us_ 'do to _him_, as _we_ would be done by.'\"\n\nNow, my friends, let us apply this example, to the Catholic religion.\nHave you not read books, that gave you the most horrible account of the\nCatholic religion, have you not heard people, tell the most infamous\nthings against this religion, and have you not, _even_ in places of\n_worship_, heard this religion, most _cruelly_ called, and abused? But\ndid you ever ask yourselves, whether all that you then read or heard, was\n_really_ true? Did you consider, that abuse, is no argument, declamation,\nno evidence, accusation, no verdict? Did you examine the witnesses on the\n_other_ side? Did you read any _Catholic_ book, or consult any\nwell-instructed _Catholic_ layman, or minister on these subjects? Did you\nnot condemn the poor Catholics, _unheard_, and without giving them a\n_fair_ trial? But mind, I am not blaming _you_, nor the _public in\ngeneral_, for this ignorance of our religion, nor am I surprised at it.\nNo, considering what has been the state of things, I cannot conceive how\nit could have been otherwise. For these misrepresentations, and false\nstatements against our religion, have been often made by very\n_respectable_ persons, and often repeated to the people, either from _the\npulpit, where_ nothing but the _truth_, should be spoken, or in tracts,\nand books, which either _are_, or _profess to be_ written by _learned_\nand _sincere_ members of society. Thus hearing these statements, and\naccusations, from _these_ sources, the people very natural enough\nconclude, that all that is said against the poor _benighted_ Papists,\n_must be true_. But my friends, I beg of you that _in future_, you will\nalways remember, that the law of England, strictly forbids any one, even\nthe _basest criminal_, to be condemned _before_, he has had a _fair_\ntrial, that it is an excellent maxim in life, \"hear _both_ sides _before_\nyou _judge_,\" and the Scripture expressly says: \"Thou shalt not bear\n_false_ witness against _thy_ neighbour.\" Why should not then the _same_\nprinciples, be adopted in _judging_ of the _Catholic_ religion? When\nthen, in future your hear any abuse, or accusation against the Catholic\nreligion, I beg of you to ask yourselves two questions: _First, am I\ncertain_ that the _Catholic_ Church maintains _such_ doctrine? and\n_secondly, if it does_, have I heard the _proofs_, which may be advanced,\n_in confirmation_ of _that_ doctrine? Oh! would only all Englishmen,\ngrant the Catholics this common boon of justice! how soon would that\ndark, and heavy cloud of prejudice and misrepresentation, which has so\nlong hung over our religion, immediately burst, and as the sun, after\nhaving been shrouded in clouded majesty, amidst the terrific storm,\nbursts forth with more transcendent brightness, so would the Catholic\nfaith, after having been so long darkened with the mist of false\nrepresentation, burst forth, with a lustre and brightness, which could\nnot help attracting the eye of every sensible, and thinking mind.\n\nOne or two more remarks to you Englishmen, and then, I really must for\nthe present bid you farewell. You cannot be ignorant of the many\nProtestant clergyman, who, are either returning in _many_ respects to the\nCatholic faith, or who have _already, publicly_ renounced the\n_Protestant_, and embraced the _Catholic_ faith. Now, with all these\nvenerable examples before _you_, ought not _you laity_, to begin to\nthink, that _you also_, have a right, nay, that it is _your duty_, to\nexamine how religious affairs, stand in England? You cannot read, without\nfeelings of interest, and surprise, the account of the _numerous_\nconversions, of these _Protestant_ clergymen, to the _ancient Catholic_.\nAlthough you may condemn the change, still you cannot but admire the\nsingleness of their purpose, and the strength of their minds. The\nCatholic Church, has no _earthly_ treasures (for the Protestant Church\ngot all these long since) to offer these ministers for the great\nsacrifice of wealth, of friendship, and other worldly interests, which\nthey have to forfeit, for _renouncing_ the _Protestant_, and _embracing_\nthe _Catholic_ faith. On the other hand, your rich, but poor in spirit\nChurch, lays before them _golden_ prospects, some of the best, and\nhighest preferments of your Church. But, they have turned their backs\nupon them all, either to accept the lowly charge of a Catholic Priest, or\nto sink into some despised, and humble situation in life. To many of you,\nthese sacrifices may appear folly; but remember these converts, have\nlately studied in the school of St. Paul, who \"suffered the loss of all\nthings, and accounted them as dung, that he might gain Christ.\" (Phil.\niii.) Thus, they have cheerfully renounced the riches, and honours of\nthis world, to associate themselves in faith, and worship, with those\nholy, and illustrious members of the Catholic faith, who, in every age,\nand clime, have made it their aim, and glory, to bring their dear, but\nerring brethren, to this one fold, of the one Shepherd, Jesus Christ.\n\nI can only say it appears to me strange, passing strange, that if\nCatholicity be such a monster, as some would gladly persuade the world,\nit appears very strange, that there should be such an inclination in\nEngland, of late years, to return to this ancient faith. Every one must\nacknowledge, that the march of intellect in England, during these late\nyears, has been immense; but if Catholicity be such a monster, as our\nenemies _charitably_ represent it, what is the reason, so many are\nbeginning to enter into its fold, and what is the reason, Catholicity in\nEngland is so much in the increase? This great increase, is acknowledged\neven by our enemies. One would _reasonably_ think, that if Catholicity be\nsuch a monster, the march of intellect would have _naturally_ guarded the\npeople against it. It surely will not be said, that the people have not\nbeen sufficiently warned against it. What! not sufficiently warned\nagainst it! Have they not been warned against it, these three hundred\nyears at least? Have they not been warned against it, in books of all\ndescriptions, from the large folio to the penny tract? Have they not been\nwarned against it, in almost every pulpit (except Catholic) in England?\nHave they not been warned against it, again, and again, in the House of\nLords and Commons? Have they not been warned against it, in almost every\nrank of society? In short, have they not been warned against it by every\nmeans, that human ingenuity could devise? But surely, we shall not be\ntold, that this inclination to Catholicity, is owing to the want of\nscriptural knowledge in England? Want of scriptural knowledge indeed in\nEngland! Have not millions of money, been subscribed for the printing of\nthe scriptures, have not millions of bibles, been printed and circulated\nin England? In short has not almost every one a bible, to which he\nconfidently appeals as his word of life? And yet notwithstanding all this\n_warning_ against Catholicity, notwithstanding this immense diffusion of\nbibles in England, Catholicity is rapidly increasing, to the great dismay\nand \"horrification\" of our enemies. What then, can be the reason of this\nlate increase of Catholicity in England? Why, I will tell you, the people\nof England, can now most of them read, and the march of intellect is\nabroad, and by these means the people begin to find out, that their\nCatholic fellow creatures, have been long, an unjustly abused, a\nshamefully treated, and basely calumniated body of Christians. The\npeople, therefore, naturally begin to feel for them, and are now\nunwilling to be deceived, by the idle rant of those misinformed, but\npositive writers and preachers, who\n\n    \"Without the care of knowing right from wrong,\n    Always appear, decisive, clear, and strong,\n    Where others, toil with philosophic force,\n    Their nimble nonsense, takes a shorter course,\n    Flings at your head, conviction in a lump,\n    And gains remote conclusions at a jump.\"\n\nIt is related in the Anglo-Saxon history, that when the Catholic\nmissionaries came from abroad, to announce the truths of the Gospel to\nour pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, it is related that an aged and\nvenerable, but unconverted Thane thus addressed his pagan prince on the\nsubject. \"When,\" said he, \"O King, you and your ministers are seated at\ntable in the depth of winter, and the cheerful fire blazes on the hearth\nin the middle of the hall, a sparrow perhaps, chased by the wind and\nsnow, enters at one door of the apartment, and escapes by the other.\nDuring the moment of its passage, it enjoys the warmth; when it is once\ndeparted, it is seen no more. Such is the nature of man. During a few\nyears his existence is visible: but what has preceded, or what will\nfollow it, is concealed from the view of mortals. If the new religion,\noffer any information on subjects so mysterious and important, it must be\nworthy of our attention.\" (Ling. His. Anglo-Sax. vol. i. pp. 29-30.)\nHappy shall I consider myself, O Englishmen, if in the above pages, I\nhave advanced anything, that may be thought worthy of your attention on\nthe subject of religion. Our lives, as this pagan, but aged and venerable\nThane justly observes, are beautifully pictured by the short flight of a\nsparrow, flying through the narrow space of a hall, with a door open at\neach end. But after this short passage of life, there is something most\nawful, and mysterious awaiting us, and the true religion of God, only can\nunfold to us, how we may best prepare ourselves for the revelation of\nthose awful moments, when time shall end, and eternity begin. Surely\nthen, the sincere search after the true religion, must be a subject\nworthy of your information, of your attention, and of your frequent\nconsideration. Happy, again I repeat it, shall I consider myself, if\nanything that I may have said, shall tend to assist you in the above\nimportant, and essential investigation. Refer, however, the glory and\nhonour, not to me, but to the holy Catholic Church, under whose guidance\nI have been instructed. O holy Church, the pillar of truth and the child\nof Jesus Christ, if I stray from thine unerring word, I shall soon (a\nweak and frail child of Adam) fall down the awful precipice of spiritual\ninconsistencies, contradictions, and errors. Should I have advanced\nanything contrary to any article of thy holy faith, I am ready publicly\nto recall it. Under the safe shelter of thy unerring authority, I will\nfix my resting-place, and there, fear neither the scoffs of the infidel,\nnor the flimsy reasoning of those, who have unfortunately strayed from\nthy secure paths. O Englishmen, if you would only seriously, and\nconscientiously examine the _real_ merits of the Catholic Church, you\nwould soon find that she is built upon the pillar of truth, and that she\nis the admirable work of that wise builder, Jesus Christ, who built His\nhouse upon a firm foundation. \"And the rains fell, and the floods came,\nand the winds blew, and they beat on that house, but it fell not, for it\nwas founded upon a rock.\" (St. Matt. vii. 25.)\n\n\nERRATA.\n\nFIRST ADDRESS.\n\nPage 1, line 23, for \"rights\" read \"rites.\"\n     8, note line 6, for \"Gospels\" read \"Gospel.\"\n\n\nPRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[H] In the preceding pages, I have asserted, that the Protestant Church,\nis unjust, in taking from the poor their portion of church property,\nwhich was left them by our charitable Catholic ancestors; nay, that it is\nalso unjust, to exact tithes from those, who do not belong to the\nProtestant Church of England. Now this bold assertion against the\nProtestant Church, certainly requires a little explanation. A law may be\nconsidered in _two_ points of view, as a law of the _land_, and as a law\nof _God_. Now as the law of tithes in the Protestant Church, is\nsanctioned by act of parliament, of course the Protestant Church, is\njustified in exacting these tithes, for it has the law of the land at\n_its back in this respect_. But then, the Protestant law of tithes,\nconsidered in a _moral_ point of view, is certainly an unjust law. And\nwhy? Because it takes from the poor, what was _justly_ left them by our\ncharitable ancestors, and it exacts money from the Catholics and\ndissenters, without doing any thing to them _in return_ for this money.\nThus you see, that the law of _man_ and the law of _God_, sometimes\n_contradict_ each other; and this is _often_ the case, in your scriptural\nChurch as by law established. But is not _God_ _always_ above _man_?\nCertainly; and therefore the _law_ of _God_, ought _always_ to have the\npreference to the _law_ of _man_. But this subject of Church tithes,\nreminds me of the famous Dr. Hook of Leeds, who is _often writing_\nagainst the Roman Catholic Church, but slyly _never_ condescends to\n_answer_ any of her replies. Now, _mark well_, I am going to prove, _even\nto a demonstration_, from the words of Dr. Hook, that the Roman Catholic\nChurch, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_ in _these realms_.\nWell, you will say, if you _can_ do _that_, Dr. Hook must be a _very\nstrange_ and _inconsistent_ doctor of our Church. Really, do you know, I\nwas just thinking the same. In the year 1832, the Somerset County Gazette\ninformed the public, that Dr. Hook, in a sermon which he preached _before\nthe Queen_, uttered the following _remarkable_ words: \"Were all\nconnection between church and state, at this very moment to cease, the\nchurch (that is, the Protestant Church) would remain _precisely_ as she\n_now_ is; that is to say, our bishops, though deprived of _temporal_\nrank, would still exercise all those _spiritual_ functions which,\nconferred by higher than human authority, no human authority can take\naway; still to vacant sees they would consecrate new bishops, still\nordain the clergy, still confirm the baptized, still govern the church.\"\nSuch are the famous words of Dr. Hook, in his sermon before the Queen.\nNow let us see how _nicely_, they _prove_ the _Roman Catholic Church_, to\nbe the _true_ Church of Christ in these realms. Whether this prophecy of\nDr. Hook respecting the _Protestant_ Church, would be _really_ verified,\nwere his church to be _separated_ from the state, I will not here\nenquire; but _this_ I will say, it has been already really verified with\nregard to the _Catholic_ Church _in England_. For although at the\nReformation, the _Catholic_ Church was deprived of all aid from the\nstate, although she was unjustly spoiled of those temporal riches left by\nher charitable children, and although the exercise of her faith,\nsubjected her followers to the most _severe pains_ and _penalties_,\n(which must be for ever a disgrace to this country), still, Catholicity\ncould not be extinguished in these kingdoms; for her bishops \"_still\ncontinued_ to exercise all those _spiritual_ functions, which, conferred\nby _higher_ than _human_ authority, no human authority can take away,\n_still_, to _vacant_ sees, they consecrated new bishops, _still_ ordained\nthe clergy, _still_ confirmed the baptized, _still_ governed the church.\"\nAnd hence this _Catholic_ Church, notwithstanding all the _stormy\ntrials_, which she has undergone _in England_, exists now, and is exactly\nthe same in spiritual power, as she was before the time of the\nReformation. If, therefore, Dr. Hook considers that _this_ would be a\n_mark_ of the _true_ Church of Christ, were it to be _verified_ with\nregard to his _Protestant_ Church, we may _justly_ infer, according to\nthe _Doctor's_ principle, that the _Roman Catholic_ Church, is the _true_\nChurch _of Christ in these realms_. And why? Because the doctor's\nprinciple, has been _already really verified_, with regard to _this_\nchurch in these kingdoms. Really, I begin to think that the _famous_ Dr.\nHook of Leeds, must be some relation to Martin Luther; for Martin, _even_\nafter he had left the Catholic Church, proves, in the following words,\nthat the _Roman_ Catholic Church, was the _true_ Church of _Christ_. In\nhis book against the Anabaptists, he makes the following _candid_\nconfession: \"Under Papacy are many good things; yea, _everything_ that is\n_good_ in Christianity. I say, moreover,\" continues he, \"under Papacy is\n_true_ christianity even the _very kernel_ of christianity.\" Here we have\ntwo doctors of the Protestant Church, leaving, _even after_ they had\nstrained every nerve to _overturn_ this Catholic Church, we have, I\nrepeat, these two Protestant doctors, leaving in their writings to\nposterity, _one_ by his line of _argumentation_, and the _other_ by his\n_own_ words, the most incontestible proofs that the Roman Catholic\nChurch, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_, and that her fabric,\nis adorned with all the rich treasures of christianity. O how true is the\ndeclaration of the wise man! (Prov. xxi. 30,) \"there is no wisdom, there\nis no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord.\"\n\n[I] Joseph Hume, Esq., is, or nearly I believe, the oldest member of the\npresent House of Commons, and it may be _truly_ said, that, perhaps, no\none in that House has acted with _greater_ consistency, and more\n_disinterested_ zeal, for the promotion of the welfare of his country. He\nhas _always_ been a staunch advocate for reform, a patriot for the rights\nof the poor, and a manly defender of civil, and religious liberty _to\nall_. Hence, poor Dan. O'Connell, was sensible of the _distinguished_\npolitical merits of this _great_, and consistent statesman; and hence,\nwhen an _English_ constituency rejected this worthy member from a seat in\nthe House, Dan. _honourably_ obtained in _Ireland_ a seat for _this\nuseful and consistent_ member. Now, I am glad to find, that the _remarks_\nwhich I have just made, agree with the opinion of _this eminent_\nstatesman, _respecting the loaves and fishes of the protestant clergy_.\nThe following, are the words which Joseph Hume, Esq. has _just_ uttered\non this subject: \"but their zeal (that is, the zeal of the protestant\nclergy,) against the Catholics, looks to me, to originate from _fear_ of\nthe _loaves_ and _fishes_, which they now so _largely_ enjoy for doing\n_little_, and in _many_ cases _nothing_ of public duty.\" (Joseph Hume's,\nEsq., letter to W. J. Cole, Esq., Lechdale, Gloucestershire, 24th Dec.,\n1850.)\n\n[J] I cannot help relating here a circumstance (I hope it is not foreign\nto the purpose) that happened to one of my acquaintance. He was\ntravelling in a coach, in which were three other respectable passengers.\nAmong other subjects, the conversation (as is often the case) turned on\nCatholics. One of the gentlemen, immediately commenced a philippic\nagainst the Catholics, and called them idolaters, superstitious,\nmurderers, and many other _pretty_ names. My acquaintance allowed the\ngentleman, to pour out his abuse for some time _without interruption_,\nand appeared much amused by his bold assertions, and flaming descriptions\nof the poor _deluded_ papists. During the conversation, a person in\nliquor, rode up to the coach window, and began to annoy the passengers,\nby his yells and impertinent behaviour. My acquaintance immediately said\nto the gentleman, who was telling such pretty things about the Catholics,\nlet us have this drunken man taken up, he has murdered two or three\npeople. The gentleman replied, \"Are you, Sir, _certain_ that he _has_\nmurdered two or three people? Can you _prove it_? Because it would be\nvery _unjust_ to take the man up, unless you could _prove_ the crimes\nwhich you mention.\" \"No,\" answered my acquaintance, \"I am not certain.\nAnd let me ask you, if _you_ are _certain_, that all the charges, which\nyou have just brought against the _Catholics_ are _true_? I am a\nCatholic, and must tell you they are _false_, and if _you_ would only\nfollow the advice, which you have just given _me_ about this man, you\nwould find the truth of what I say. If _you_ would not wish _me_ to\naccuse this man of a crime, which I am not certain he _has_ committed, I\nbeg that _you_, for the future, will _never_ accuse the _Catholics_ of\ncharges, which _you_ cannot _prove_ to be true, and which, if you would\nonly take the trouble to examine, you would find to be _absolutely\nfalse_.\" The gentleman looked _much perplexed_, and was so ashamed of\nhimself, that he never spoke another word until they parted. The other\ntwo gentlemen _enjoyed the joke wonderfully, and laughed most heartily_.\n\n[K] We read of the ancient prophets, whom God sent to reform the Jews\nthat they began their prophecies by admonishing the people, that the Lord\nhad spoken to them: \"Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the\nLord hath spoken.\" Isai, c. i. v. 2. Whereas God has permitted that the\ndoctrine of the Reformation, should have been originally announced to the\nworld, by a man of insupportable pride, who disclaimed the authority, and\ndoctrine of all Churches then upon the earth; who made no difficulty of\nacknowledging, that it was from _the devil_, he learned _one_ of the\nprincipal articles of the Reformation, and who might therefore, have said\nto his followers, \"Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the\n_devil_ hath spoken.\"\n\n[L] But some will perhaps ask, why did the _first_ reformers inveigh _so\nmuch_ against _Purgatory_ and _Prayers for the dead_? Why the first\nreformers liked _spiritual_ commerce, _without_ duty if they could only\ncontrive it. Now, as a remuneration for Prayers for the dead, our\ncharitable ancestors had left certain handsome sums of money; now these\nreformers liked the _money_, but _not_ the _obligation_ of the Prayers;\nand, therefore, they inveighed _right lustily against_ the Prayers, but\ntook care to slyly pocket the money. But when this spiritual commerce\ncould _not_ be carried on unless the duty was _performed_, they very\nkindly retained the popish practice, and thus secured the money; witness\nthe tolling of the bell for persons _just_ dead, the churching of\nfemales, and of burying the dead. These and other are in reality the\nremnants of popish ceremonies, and the performance of them inspire on the\n_Catholic_ mind _devotional_ feelings; but by Protestants are, _in\ngeneral_, looked upon very lightly, in a _spiritual_ point of view. But\nthen take away these popish ceremonies, and off flies the fee. Will the\nfee for baptism be now demanded, as baptism has been _lately_ declared to\nbe an unnecessary act of religion in the Protestant Church? Our Saviour\nsaid to His Apostles, \"Go, teach all nations, _baptizing_ them,\" (that\nis, all nations,) but the Protestant Church says to her ministers, \"Go\nteach all nations,\" but as to the _absolute necessity_ of baptism, our\nSaviour _must_ have been wrong, and, therefore, go please yourselves\nabout it.\n\n[M] Appendix to \"Reasons why I am not a member of the Bible Society. By\nthe Hon. Arthur Philip Percival, B.C.L. Chaplain in Ordinary to His\nMajesty.\"--Fifth Edition.\n\n[N] Would my Lord Harewood, who _lately_ figured so conspicuously on the\nplatform in York, as the advocate for the pure and unadulterated Word of\nGod, without note or comment, point out to the people _the sure guide_,\nwhich they are to follow, amidst this _awful Protestant_ falsification,\nand mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures? The Spanish chemist (as related\nabove) cut his master into pieces, and put the pieces into his\nsublimatory glass, with the hope of raising his master, to a more\nperfect state than he enjoyed, when God made him. Now, my Lord, from\nwhat I have said above, has not the Protestant Church, cut the\nScriptures into pieces, and put them into the sublimatory glass of\nfalsification and mutilation? but, my Lord, will she be ever able to\nraise them again, to as perfect a state as they were in, when God made\nthem, or when your Protestant Church received them, from the hands of\nthe Catholic Church? I am sure, my Lord, she will be here at _fault_.\nAnother remark or two, my Lord, and I have done. The man, who embraces a\nreligious opinion from conviction, has undoubtedly the right to maintain\nit by argument. But truth will be his first and principal object, and\nthe champion of truth, will disdain the petty artifices of substituting\nassertion for truth, and misrepresentation for fact. He will never\ncondescend to swell the crowd of idle disputants, whose ingenuity first,\nframes a creed for the Church of Rome, and then, after combatting a\nphantom of its own creation, exults in an easy and a decisive victory.\nMy Lord, just adopt this advice in all your _future_ observations on the\ncreed of Catholics, and then, you will escape two ridiculous\nconsequences; of exalting the Scriptures on the one hand, and of\ntransgressing on the other, one of the golden precepts of that sacred\nvolume, \"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.\" But\nfar be it from me, my Lord, to _assert_ that you have _already done_\nthis. I merely wish to guard your Lordship, against the above ridiculous\nconsequences. Now, as your ideas, with regard to the _Catholic_ doctrine\non the Scriptures, appear to be rather vague, I will just state, in\nshort, our doctrine on that subject. Our Saviour commanded his apostles\nto go and preach his gospel, and after they had done this for a certain\ntime, he then inspired some of them to write certain books, for the\nfuller instruction of those persons on certain points, which they either\ndid not perfectly understand, or of which they were ignorant. For, as\nthe apostles were absent from these persons, (for twelve men could not\nbe in many places at the same time,) they found it necessary to\ncommunicate by their pens, certain instructions which these persons\nrequired. Now, as what the apostles _wrote_, as well as what they\n_preached_, was _equally_ the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church,\nafterwards, carefully collected those sacred books, which were written\nby some of these inspired men, gave to the whole of these sacred books\nthus collected, the name of the New Testament, and presented this volume\nto the people as the inspired Word of God, and has handed it down as\nsuch to her faithful in every age, in as perfect a manner as possible.\nAnd in the distribution of it to her faithful in every age, she has\nfollowed the example of the apostles. For she orders her ministers to go\n_first_, to preach and teach the gospel to the people, and _afterwards_,\nfor their further instruction, she puts the sacred Scriptures into the\nhands of the faithful. But mind, as your Protestant Reformers have\n_shamefully_ corrupted and mutilated the sacred Scriptures, she rejects\nyour human and metamorphosed translations, forbids the use of your\nincorrect, corrupt, and mutilated translations, and puts into their\nhands, _well-authenticated_ copies of that sacred volume. Hence, on\naccount of her _great anxiety_, for the distribution of _correct_, and\n_well-authenticated_ copies among her faithful, certain Protestants have\nthe _audacity_ to assert, that the Catholic Church, forbids the use of\nthe Scripture to her people, or at least, will not let them read the\npure word of God without note or comment. Do I impeach the veracity of\nthese Protestants! Of some indeed I do, but not of all. But this I will\nsay, most of them might know better, if they would only seek information\nfrom proper sources. I hope, this short explanation of the _Catholic_\ndoctrine on the Scripture, will satisfy Lord Harewood, and caution him\nnever to speak on matters, which _essentially_ concern _his neighbour's_\ninterest, _unless_ he _first_ perfectly understands them.\n\nOne word more, and I have done. I once heard, that a Noble Lord,\nattending a great County Meeting, in the York Castle-yard, had achieved\nfor himself a lasting notoriety, by declaring, that in his opinion, \"the\nBible ought to be read by all men, and women, and children, and _even\nidiots_.\" And scarcely had the merriment excited by this memorable burst\nof sound sense subsided, before his Lordship was heard thus resuming his\nexhilarating eloquence. \"Yes, even by idiots. I myself have derived great\nadvantage from that book.\" The effect upon the meeting was electric. The\nnoble advocate of the unfortunate idiots, had so completely identified\nhimself with his clients, that laughter became irresistible, and to what\nclass of intelligent beings, his Lordship belonged, most evident. I\nbelieve this is the only instance on record, of a Noble Earl,\nestablishing his religious opinions, at the expense of his understanding.\n\n[O] Here follows a long extract from Lord Tenterden's Speech, which it is\nunnecessary to reprint.\n\n[P] By the fundamental rule of Protestantism, every individual, possesses\nthe right of private judgment, and of course, is allowed to interpret the\nBible, as his reason, or his feelings, suggest; and yet, _mark_ the\ncontradiction, he is _not_ allowed, to interpret the _thirty-nine\nArticles_. For in the declaration prefixed to this singular code, it is\nsaid: \"His Majesty, prohibits his loving subjects, the least difference\nfrom them, or putting their _own_ sense upon them; but requires them, to\nbe taken in _their literal_, and _grammatical_ sense.\" Now, Dr. Paley\nsays, that \"the Thirty-nine Articles, will be found, on dissection, to\ncontain about two hundred and forty _distinct_, and independent\npropositions; many of them, inconsistent with _each_ other.\" In fact, few\nof the English Clergy subscribe the articles in the literal, and\ngrammatical sense; \"and Burnet says, that in his own times, the greater\npart of the clergy, subscribed the Articles, _without examining them_,\"\nand that others do it, because they _must_ do it, _though they can hardly\nsatisfy their consciences_, about some things in them. Dr. Balguy says,\nthat \"the Thirty-nine Articles impose upon us doctrines of dark, and\nignorant ages.\" How just, then, must the observation of Gibbon be, \"that\nthe great body of the English Clergy, sign the Thirty-nine Articles, with\na _sigh_, or a _smile_.\" Really, to require that men, should take these\nArticles, in their literal, and grammatical sense, whilst many of them,\nhave _no literal_, or _grammatical_ sense, nay, moreover, to oblige men,\nto swear that they believe them, is, in my humble opinion, a violation of\ncommon sense, and of decency. In all this, there may be some degree of\npolitical wisdom, but it is surely, an act of very gross, religious\ninconsistency.\n\n[Q] The name of Ireland, brings to my mind, the great O'Connell, the\npride of his country, the wonder of England, and the admiration of the\nworld. When I read the direful grievances of that ill-treated nation, I\nwish, for the sake of England, (which I dearly love) that those\ngrievances had never been written, either on the pages of history, or on\nthe records of heaven. Oh, Ireland, how thou remindest me of the\nsufferings of my Saviour! \"a man of sorrow, and the outcast of the\npeople.\" Had not _his_ divine example been continually before _thy eyes_,\nthou never couldst have endured thy load of miseries, of sorrows, and of\npersecution, and so nobly have proved thy loyal allegiance to thy\nsovereign, even amidst a deluge of insults, and of wrongs, and of\ninjustices, that would have maddened any other nation, into a whirlwind\nof fury, and revenge, and rebellion; but thou rememberedst the words of\nthy Saviour, \"love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and\npersecute you.\" But thy days of sufferings and of sorrow are, I hope,\nhastening to a close; but perhaps, the time of retribution for England\nhas yet to come. Oh, may Heaven avert this dreadful day of reckoning for\nmy dear country! But, Oh, Ireland, I must not forget the pride of thy\nheart--the great O'Connell--the much-abused and calumniated Dan. He is\nnow, indeed, beyond this land of misery; but alas, he died a beggar! Yes,\nHE whom the newspapers _formerly_ held up, as a _most base knave_, a\n_deceiver_, and a _money-hunter_, _even he_ at last, died a beggar, for\nthe _love_ of his country. He nobly sacrificed his, from ten to fourteen\nthousand a year, which he was making by his profession, and in lieu,\naccepted the comparatively small and precarious offerings of his\ncountrymen, every farthing of which he spent in promoting their welfare;\nhe blasted all the patrimonial prospects of his own family, and at last,\ndied a martyr and a beggar, for his country; and yet, there is not one\nEnglish Protestant newspaper to do him common justice, by _even hinting_\nat these _heroic_ actions. Oh, how justly may I address them in the\nsevere words of the poet:\n\n    \"You all did hate him once, but without cause,\n    What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?\n    Oh, judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts!\n    And men have lost their reason.\"\n\nBut, Oh immortal Dan! their praises or censures to thee are equally\nworthless, for thy colossal deeds during life, and thy heroic death, have\nimmortalized thy name. But of all thy sorrows, the _stab_ that _burst_\nthy generous soul, was the \"_unkindest cut of all_;\" for when some of thy\ncountrymen, whom thou hadst _raised and honoured_, wished to take into\ntheir hands the maddening weapons of injustice, revenge, and rebellion,\nand wished to bury thy dear country in the ruins of bloodshed and\nrevolution, thou,\n\n    \"Then rushing out of doors, to be resolved,\n    If these men so unkindly knocked, or no,\n    Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,\n    Quite vanquished thee, then burst thy noble heart!\"\n\nOn which was engraved, in vivid characters, love for thy religion,\npatriotism for thy country, loyal and sincere allegiance to thy Queen,\nand a burning desire for civil and religious liberty for all mankind. Oh,\nhow justly may we apply to thee, the words of the poet,\n\n    \"Thou art the ruins, of the noblest man,\n    That ever lived, in the tide of times.\"\n\nI, formerly, like many other Englishmen, thought only very lightly of thy\nactions; but thy noble deeds convinced me of my _rash_ judgment; and as\nsome little retribution, I have paid this small tribute to thy memory.\nOh, may God forgive me for my rash judgments, and may thy colossal soul\nrest in peace.\n\nBut can I here forget \"the finest Protestant (as the immortal Dan. justly\nobserved) that Ireland ever saw?\" O no! I know indeed, some will sneer at\nit, and call it the voice of flattery, but in the eyes of poor Ireland,\nit will be regarded as a just act of gratitude, to remember the liberal,\nthe high-minded, and chivalrous nobleman, the Marquis of Normanby. When\nthis kind hearted, and enlightened statesman, first placed his foot on\nthe shores of Ireland, \"the cauldron\" (of political discords) as Lord\nPlunkett had said, \"was boiling over, and the polemic (religious) contest\nwas thrown in as an ingredient.\" But as soon as the Marquis of Normanby,\nhoisted in Ireland his political flag of truth, of justice, and of\nhonour, then the cauldron (of political discord,) gradually cooled, and\nthe polemic (religious) contest gradually subsided, into the more\ncongenial calm of peace, of union, and of charity. Hence, might be seen\nthe noble Marquis of Normanby, and his charitable marchioness, gracing,\nand gladdening by their presence the streets of Dublin, unattended by\nmilitary escorts, but _safely_ guarded, by the generous hearts, and\nfaithful loyalty of a grateful people. To have touched even a single hair\nof their heads, or to have offered the least insult to these noble, and\ngenerous creatures, would have instantly brought down on the base\noffender, the indignation and fury of the people. There the noble\nMarquis, without any detriment to his political dignity, walked without\nguards, surrounded by the hearts of the people, an honour to England, a\njust representative of our most gracious, liberal, and well-beloved\nQueen, the idol of the people, and the saviour of Ireland. But why\nmention merely Ireland? His _whole_ political career, has been a\nconsistent course of truth, of justice, and of honour. When only young,\nthe golden prospect of Tory promotion, the inheritance of his noble\nfather's political influence, a seat in Parliament already obtained by a\nTory constituency, were all laid before him; when lo! his penetrating\nthough youthful mind, saw that his dear country required reform, and\ntherefore, sacrificing all the above golden prospects, he disinterestedly\nranked himself, under the banner of reform. Afterwards a sinecure, but\nprofitable office under Government, was offered him by the Whig ministry;\nbut his political creed, was reform and consistency, and therefore, he\npolitely declined the tempting offer. He is afterwards honoured with the\ngovernment of Jamaica, and there shews himself the sincere friend of the\nslave, and on one occasion, generously and manfully exposed even his own\nlife, to vindicate and obtain their just rights: and how dearly he was\nthere beloved, the sorrowful and sincere lamentations, that bade him the\nlast farewell, can best tell. He is honoured also, with the government of\nIreland, and gradually peace, contentment, and union, begun to smile on\nthat long agitated, and mis-ruled land. But in all his political\npromotions, to his honour be it remembered, that he never solicits nor\nasks of Government any places of office for his relations. Such has been\nthe consistent and even tenor of his political career. Long, will the\nname of Normanby, be dearly cherished, in the heart of every sincere\nCatholic, of every grateful Irishman, and of every true English reformer;\nand he will be handed down to posterity, as a worthy descendant of the\nMulgrave family, whose character has always been distinguished, for their\nacts of justice, liberality, and charity to all, _without any distinction\nof religious creeds_. Well then might the immortal Dan declare, that \"The\nMarquis of Normanby, was the finest Protestant, that Ireland ever saw.\"\n\n\n\n\n  TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES\n\n\n  Introduction\n\n  Page iv: Latern as in the original\n\n  First address\n\n  Page 1: goverment corrected to government after \"The clergy, and the\n    head of the\"\n  Page 2: intolerence corrected to intolerance after \"before this\n    whirlwind of Protestant\"\n  Page 6: descendents as in the original\n  Page 9: addres corrected to address after \"would tempt me to\"\n  Page 12: te corrected to to after \"But it manifestly allows us\"\n  Page 12: \" added before \"as to preventing persons\"\n  Page 14: Torento corrected to Toronto after \"Kingston, Byetown,\"\n  Page 14: Irvinites as in the original\n  Page 15: freeborn standardised to free-born\n  Page 15: diocess corrected to diocese after \"and assigned to it a\"\n  Page 15: Caldea corrected to Chaldea after \"jurisdiction over Syria,\"\n  Page 18: Portestant corrected to Protestant after \"If therefore the\n    orthodox\"\n  Page 19: \" added after \"limitation of the crown\"\n  Page 21: ancesters corrected to ancestors after \"having to suffer, what\n    our Catholic\"\n  Page 25: villany as in the original\n  Page 26: distintinguished corrected to distinguished after \"I am sure\n    (says this\"\n  Footnote A: Anglo Saxon corrected to Anglo-Saxon\n  Footnote D: pourtrayed as in the original\n  Footnote D: shillalah as in the original\n  Footnote D: floodgates standardised to flood-gates\n\n  Second address\n\n  Page 9: phillippic corrected to philippic after \"meeting, a thundering\"\n  Page 14: he standardised to He after \"mankind; that is,\"\n  Page 19: ' changed to \" after \"prophets under Jeroboam?\"\n  Page 20: Luthern as in the original\n  Page 23: apostacy as in the original\n  Page 24: Pharo's as in the original\n  Page 24: suicidical as in the original\n  Page 28, 29: variable spelling of Molineus/Molinaeus as in original\n  Page 29: \" ( added before \"In Defens. Transl.)\"\n  Page 29: detort as in the original\n  Page 30: \" added after \"delegates of the Clarendon press.\"\n  Page 31: \" added after \"to the end of Jeremiah.\"\n  Page 42: . added after Gaz\n  Page 56: heirarchy corrected to hierarchy after \"put together, more than\n    the\"\n  Page 56: \" added after \"of any earthly power!\"\n  Page 66: \" added after \"liberal to the poor_.\"\n  Footnote H: \" removed before \"our bishops, though deprived\"\n  Footnote J: phillippic corrected to philippic after \"immediately\n    commenced a\"\n  Footnote N: \" added after \"and _even idiots_.\"\n  Footnote Q: collossal corrected to colossal after \"rash judgments, and\n    may thy\"\n\n  General: Errata applied to text.\n  General: Spelling of inuendo, inuendoes as in the original\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Two Addresses: One, to the Gentlemen of Whitby, Who Signed the Requisition, Calling a Meeting to Address the Queen, on the Late (So Called) Aggression of the Pope: and the Other, to the Protestant Clergy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":46181}